nexus_plan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only action, and 'Returns per-step results and metadata' states an observable behavior, but it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects, mention prerequisites, or describe error cases.

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 two concise sentences with purpose first and return behavior second. There is no redundancy 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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description plus schema covers the main usage: what the tool checks, what it returns, and how to list recent plans. It could add explicit read-only wording or sibling differentiation, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents the single plan_id parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'previously executed plan' connects loosely to plan_id, but the description offers no extra format or behavior details.

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?

Uses a clear verb ('Check') and identifies the specific resource ('status of a previously executed plan'), while adding that it returns per-step results and metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like nexus_status or nexus_subagent_status, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of nexus_plan_execute, nexus_status, or nexus_subagent_status. The schema says plan_id can be omitted to list recent plans, but the description itself does not frame usage context or exclusions.

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