progress_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a safe read via 'Read' and hints at output format via 'structured fields,' but says nothing about permissions, behavior when PROGRESS.md is absent, or whether a regeneration is ever triggered.

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 with no filler; the verb comes first and the resource immediately follows. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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, and an undocumented parameter, the description does not fill the resulting gaps. The agent lacks the information needed to know when this tool is the right choice or how to supply 'project' correctly.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. With the schema silent, the description should explain what a project is, whether it is optional, and what happens if omitted, but it does none of that.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (current PROGRESS.md state), and the parenthetical 'structured fields' hints at the return shape. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling progress_regenerate, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance at all. It does not say to prefer this over progress_regenerate, nor how it relates to the memory_* family that shares the same server context.

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