admin_get_round_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (restricted to the White team) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get.' However, it does not describe the output format, whether the data is live or cached, or any error behaviors, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent can expect.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action, the data provided, and the access restriction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential purpose and a critical access constraint. It could be more complete by specifying the exact return structure (e.g., mapping of team IDs to percentages), but the current level is sufficient for a simple query tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered by the empty properties object. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'task completion percentages per team for current round.' It distinguishes this from sibling admin and overview tools by specifying the exact metric and scope, and it includes the access restriction 'White team only.'

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 description indicates that this tool is for the 'White team only,' which is a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative reporting tools (e.g., scoreboard_get_line_data or overview_get_data), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the team restriction.

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