split_plan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say what status values or progress information come back, whether the call is cheap to repeat, or how long a plan typically remains queryable before it is cleaned up.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The 'Args:' docstring block is slightly noisy for a single parameter already documented in the schema, but the overall definition is short and easy to read.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the core is adequate. However, a progress-checking tool benefits from knowing what the response represents (e.g., queued/running/complete) and whether the plan can be cancelled while in flight, neither of which is covered.

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 100%, and the description's only parameter note is a verbatim restatement of the schema's plan_id description, so it adds no new meaning such as format, lifetime, or examples. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the sole 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check the progress of a split plan'), which is distinct from siblings like plan_assembly_split and cancel_split_plan. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the boundary between them, but an agent can identify the tool's role.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the plan_id is 'returned by submitting a split plan', which suggests this is a follow-up polling call. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of cancel_split_plan as an alternative, and no indication of how often to poll or when to stop.

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