Check progress

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

The description aligns with annotations by stating 'Side effects: none; read-only on the most recent task.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: error behavior when no task exists, the 'not enabled' state until project approval, and the form of the returned recommendation. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then organized into labeled sections: return format, usage conditions, follow-up actions, exclusions, side effects, and errors. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or 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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what the response looks like, how to react to each recommendation, and failure/error modes. This is complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description instead explains what will happen when the tool is invoked, which is the appropriate contribution at this level.

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: 'Estimate whether more work on the current task's path is still worth it.' It also identifies the unique output ('Recommendation: continue', 'pivot' or 'stop'), which clearly distinguishes it from planning tools like get_execution_context.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('unsure mid-task whether to keep going'), what to do after 'pivot' and 'stop', and what it is not for, naming the alternative tool get_execution_context. This is complete usage guidance.

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