get_progression_stats

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns total content count and completed count, which is useful but not extensive. It does not describe any side effects, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint.

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 compact and well-structured, with three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then explains parameters and returns, avoiding any redundant or vague filler.

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 the simple read-only nature and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return values and parameter usage. It omits edge cases or precise definitions of 'completed', but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains workspace_id as the target workspace ID and points to list_workspaces() for available IDs, and clarifies collection_id as an optional scoping filter. This adequately covers both parameters despite lacking detailed schema annotations.

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 states the tool gets completion statistics for the current user, specifying a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('completion statistics'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other actions like progression patching or content management.

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 explains the required workspace_id and how to obtain it via list_workspaces(), and notes the optional collection_id scoping. It lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, but given the unique purpose, the 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.