Project Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes both processing status and ready-clip count, but says nothing about possible status values, whether it must be polled, or rate-limit expectations.

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 tight sentence with the essential information ('processing status' and 'clips ready') front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and partially meets it by naming status and clip count. For a status-polling tool it should ideally mention status values or polling semantics, leaving a moderate 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?

There is a single required parameter, projectId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it only weakly does ('a project's'). It conveys that the ID names a project but adds no format or source guidance (e.g., where to obtain it, as with list_projects).

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 and resource ('Check a project's processing status') plus the payload detail ('how many clips are ready'). An agent can distinguish it from list_projects/list_clips, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings or from beat_edit_status/ai_status, which use similar 'status' naming.

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 on when to call this versus list_projects, list_clips, or the other status siblings, and no mention of polling behavior for a status endpoint. The usage context (check after creating/uploading to a project) is only implied.

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