Brute Genius Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating read and the metric names hint at the payload, but it says nothing about behavior when plan_id is unknown, when the plan is finished/killed, or about polling cost — gaps for a no-annotation 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key metrics are listed compactly. It reads as a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on what the status conveys. Remaining gaps (plan_id provenance, behavior on completed plans) are minor given the output schema.

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% and the single parameter plan_id has no description in either place; the tool gives no hint that plan_id comes from brute_genius_plan. Only one parameter exists, so the gap is limited, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('live progress') plus the concrete metrics returned (shards done, combinations evaluated, best-so-far). It is clearly distinct from brute_genius_results, plan, launch and kill by being a status read, though it never explicitly names those siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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?

'Live progress' implies this is what you poll while a run is active, which differentiates it informally from the results tool, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative (e.g. 'use brute_genius_results once the run is complete') is given.

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