split_plan_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'check the progress' without disclosing if it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what constitutes progress (e.g., status string, percentage).

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?

Very concise (two lines) but includes an 'Args:' section that is somewhat redundant for a single parameter. Still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain what the return value represents (e.g., status, percentage). For a simple tool, this is a significant 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so parameter details rely on description. It adds 'The plan ID returned by submitting a split plan,' which tells where to get the ID but lacks format or constraints. Baseline 3 for one parameter.

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 clearly states 'Check the progress of a split plan,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_split_plan and plan_assembly_split.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use after submitting a split plan, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use.

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