oc_progress_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, destructive hint false, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'it never stops, retries, recovers, or executes browser actions.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's passive nature.

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 very concise with three sentences: the first defines purpose, the second describes return type, and the third clarifies what the tool does not do. No unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 diagnostic tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavior, and limitations. It explains what the tool returns ('bounded counters and advisory next-call suggestions') and that it is safe to call. No gaps are apparent given the availability of the output schema.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions (sessionId, window with default/min/max, includeRecentCalls). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: 'Read-only diagnostics for whether the current OpenChrome session appears to be progressing, stalling, or stuck.' It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('it never stops, retries, recovers, or executes browser actions'), which distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it is read-only and does not execute browser actions, implying it should be used for non-intrusive health checks. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for different diagnostics, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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