list_progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint flags, so the description is not responsible for restating those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method/path, and it does not clarify whether the time argument is a filter, an update value, or an output field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then parameter definitions. It contains no filler, though the first sentence is nearly tautological and the overall terseness leaves out contextual detail that would make it clearer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and an output schema indicated, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it is still ambiguous about the relationship between key, time, and the meaning of 'progress', which makes the tool minimally usable but not clearly complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does define both parameters: 'key' as the metadata key of the item and 'time' as the current playback position in milliseconds. This adds useful units and meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it could be slightly more explicit about optionality and null behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action, 'Get', and names the resource, 'Progress', plus the endpoint `GET /:/progress`. However, it never specifies what kind of progress is being retrieved (playback progress, task progress, etc.) or which item/context it applies to, so the purpose remains vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The Args section implies it involves a metadata key and playback time, but it does not explain when this should be called instead of related status, history, or transcode tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.