plan_tracker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects on stored plans, or what it returns. The word 'Track' could imply monitoring, but it's not explicit. This lack of detail is risky for an agent invoking the tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main action and key details. The parenthetical status list and the citation add context but are not strictly necessary for tool invocation. It is concise and well-structured, though the citation is a minor distraction.

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?

The tool has two parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the expected format of 'plan' or 'statuses', nor what a completion ratio means in practice. It also fails to describe the return value or side effects. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. While it hints that 'plan' contains steps and statuses appear in parentheses, it does not clarify the structure of the 'plan' array or the 'statuses' object, nor how they relate. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema shows.

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 ('Track') and resource ('execution status of each plan step'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'plan' or 'replan'. It also enumerates the status values and mentions a completion ratio, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but not in which situations it should be preferred over siblings like 'plan', 'replan', or 'plan_quality'. This is a clear gap for a tool in a large family of plan-related utilities.

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