Get watch progress

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the entries are profile-scoped 'continue watching' entries, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or output shape—acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the key facts quickly and is appropriately small for a simple read operation.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the combination of schema, annotations, and description covers purpose, safety, and profile scoping. It lacks an explicit statement of return shape or pagination, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 phrase 'for a profile' gives profile_id contextual meaning beyond its name and default. The limit parameter receives no description-level explanation, and with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('continue watching' progress entries), and the scope ('for a profile'). This clearly separates it from sibling write/delete progress tools and from watch-history tools.

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 on when to choose this over nuvio_get_watch_history or the set/delete watch-progress tools. The intended selection context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or conditions.

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