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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the result set is filtered to in-flight jobs and is capped at 3 entries. However, it says nothing about ordering guarantees, what a job entry contains, or what happens with zero active jobs, which are the details an agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted wording, and the most important qualifier ('newest running') is front-loaded. It is arguably over-terse, but nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about return values, yet it never says what a returned job looks like or what identifiers it exposes. For a polling tool that an agent will use to decide next steps, that leaves a meaningful 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource (video swap jobs) and its scope (newest, still running, capped at 3), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from the closely related ryla_video_swap_status and ryla_video_swap_history siblings. An agent can guess it lists in-flight jobs, but must infer how it differs from status/history.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word 'running' weakly implies it is for polling active jobs rather than completed ones, but nothing states that history or status tools should be used instead for other cases.

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