get_my_progress

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the result is 'an explicitly partial browser snapshot' and 'displayed progress does not establish course completion,' which prevents the agent from treating the data as authoritative. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, response content, and the partial-snapshot caveat. The verb and scope are front-loaded with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so at a conceptual level (summary or section, availableSections, partial snapshot). It does not detail the shape of the progress fields, but for a read-only tool with rich annotations and moderate complexity, the essential guidance is present.

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 50%: courseId is fully described in the schema, but section is not. The description partially compensates by explaining sections are 'discovered from its actual summary links' and noting the response 'Includes availableSections,' which hints at how valid section values are obtained without documenting each enum option.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read your own visible course progress summary') and a conditional variant ('a selected section discovered from its actual summary links'). The 'your own visible' qualifier distinguishes it from official-grade siblings like get_official_grade and get_my_grades, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scope ('your own visible course progress') implies when to use it, and 'discovered from its actual summary links' hints at a workflow. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over overlapping siblings like get_study_overview or get_my_grades.

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