mkt_progress

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only ('只读'), which is valuable, but it says nothing about what data is scanned, what period boundaries are applied, or what the response contains. For a no-annotation tool this leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the read-only constraint comes first, followed by the two mode characterizations. There is no filler, though the metaphorical question phrasing trades some precision for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and roughly 40 sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain the 'on' parameter, does not clarify what a progress report returns, and does not differentiate this tool from adjacent status, scorecard, or retro tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters. The description semantically maps to the 'scope' enum by contrasting daily and weekly questions, which is modest added meaning. It says nothing about the 'on' parameter (presumably a date anchor), leaving that parameter entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 labels the tool as read-only progress reporting and hints at two modes (daily vs. weekly) through rhetorical questions, but it never states a concrete verb+resource or what is actually measured. An agent can infer the general purpose but cannot distinguish it from siblings like mkt_status or mkt_scorecard based on this text alone.

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?

The framing 'daily asks what should have moved today, weekly asks whether this week is better than last' implies when each scope applies, so the choice between daily and weekly is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of when to prefer other progress/status tools in the large sibling set.

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