get_progress_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention if the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. Only states 'aggregated progress summary', which is not sufficiently transparent.

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?

Description is very concise, single sentence, no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it misses important details, so it's not perfectly balanced.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return format, possible values for metric, or any constraints. Schema covers parameter details, but overall completeness is lacking.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how 'metric' affects aggregation or provide examples. Schemas already describe dates and metric, but no added value from 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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'aggregated progress summary', and scope 'between two dates'. It differentiates from many sibling tools that provide raw or daily data, but could be more explicit about what 'progress summary' entails compared to similar tools like get_daily_summary or get_user_summary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summary or get_steps_data. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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