report_task_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that progress reports are sent to Admin/Owner, and progress can be auto-calculated with checklist. Does not mention side effects or permissions beyond 'Worker only', but tool is non-destructive.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, usage guidance, and an Args section. While somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with primary function.

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?

Given 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, who can use, when to report, parameter details, and return format. Also distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly.

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 has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but description provides detailed meaning for all 5 parameters: progress range (0-100, recommended 10% increments), checklist structure (array of objects with text/completed), message purpose, and caller_agent_id as Worker ID. Adds crucial constraints and formatting.

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?

Title and description clearly state 'report_task_progress' and 'Worker がタスクの進捗を報告する' (Worker reports task progress). Distinguishes from sibling report_task_completion by focusing on progress updates rather than final completion. Also specifies that only Worker can use.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: Worker reports progress every 10%. Mentions that Admin and Owner can monitor in real time. Recommends 10% increments and notes auto-calculation with checklist. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear enough.

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