get-inprogress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the return semantics (empty array meaning, entry fields), the endpoint hit, and the mirrored library method. It does not cover auth, errors, or rate limits, but for a simple GET this is strong disclosure.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint/mirror, return semantics, and usage context. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, return format, and usage context. It also gives enough detail to distinguish it from related tools. The description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for chat_id with description 'Chat UUID or numeric id (required)'. The tool description mentions chat_id only in the endpoint URL and does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Return the in-progress generations for a chat' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on in-progress generations and explicitly mentioning its role as a gate for wait-for-response.

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?

Provides clear context: used to check if anything is currently generating, with empty array meaning nothing in progress. It mentions it is used internally by wait-for-response, giving practical when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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