Progress of a plan

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: finished answers are persisted to .leanfare/plans/<id>/ in a git-ignored folder, which explains why readOnlyHint is false despite this being a status check, and it documents the wait semantics (default 0, capped at 50, returns as soon as nothing is running). It does not say what happens on an unknown or stopped plan, whether answers accumulate across calls, or how peek interacts with the saved answers beyond the schema note.

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 is front-loaded and the text is dense rather than padded, but the wait behavior is tacked on as a mid-paragraph 'wait:' fragment that duplicates the schema's maximum of 50, and the parenthetical status list is long enough to slow scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the possible part states and the answers of finished parts, plus the on-disk location. It covers the required id and the three optional parameters adequately; remaining gaps are edge-case behavior rather than core calling information.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the default value for wait (0) and the return-early behavior ('it answers as soon as none is running'), neither of which appears in the schema, and it clarifies that folder is where the answers land. It largely restates the 50-second cap already present in 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?

The description names the resource (each part of a plan) and enumerates the concrete states it reports (waiting, running, done, failed, yours, after yours, waiting for a yes), plus the fact that finished parts' answers are returned. That is far more specific than the title 'Progress of a plan', though the verb is implicit ('Where ... stands') and no sibling such as plan_run or plan_stop is named for 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to check a plan's progress after starting it with plan. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over plan_run, plan_stop, or plan, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that the id comes from plan) stated outside the schema.

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