Show progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the visual result. It does not say whether drawing a progress bar clears prior content, whether it blocks or returns immediately, what the device does between calls, or how 'urgent' affects other clients' draw priority.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its terseness is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

Against a five-parameter hardware-display tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits display-target tradeoffs, the meaning of 'urgent', and any note about interaction with the other bar_* rendering tools. An agent could call it, but not confidently in a multi-tool display workflow.

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?

At 60% schema coverage, three of five parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description adds no meaning for any of them. 'Labelled' implies the label renders beside the bar and '0..1' restates the schema's min/max, so no new semantic content is contributed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('show a labelled progress bar') plus its value domain (0..1), which is enough to distinguish it from bar_text, bar_image, or bar_pixels. It stops short of explicitly framing when a progress bar is preferred over the sibling display primitives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance at all: nothing says whether this replaces existing display content, whether it persists, or when bar_status or bar_text would be a better choice. The only conditional hint in the whole definition lives in the schema ('Use only when asked to interrupt'), not in the description.

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