Get watch progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description needs to add value beyond that. It does not—there is no mention of pagination, response format, or any behavioral nuance. The description merely restates the tool's action without enriching context.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, the structure is minimal and does not convey necessary details, making it borderline acceptable.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description omits what the response contains, whether pagination is involved, or any sorting/ordering. It also does not clarify the meaning of 'continue watching' relative to watch history. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further assumptions.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither 'limit' nor 'profile_id'. It provides no semantics beyond the schema's defaults and ranges, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('continue watching' progress entries), which clearly differentiates it from watch history and other siblings. It also scopes to a profile, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools it is not.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like nuvio_get_watch_history or nuvio_set_watch_progress. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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