query_video_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the asynchronous nature of video generation and documents the four possible task states (pending, processing, success, failed) with their meanings. It also mentions that successful results include video download URLs. However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions beyond 'failed' state or rate limits.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the usage context, documents the task states, provides parameter guidance, and describes return values - all in a compact format with zero wasted sentences.

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?

For a single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and return values. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling details beyond the 'failed' state, but overall it's highly complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single required 'task_id' parameter. The description adds value by specifying that task IDs come from 'generate_video' returns, providing important contextual information about parameter sourcing that isn't 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '查询豆包视频生成任务的状态和结果' (query Doubao video generation task status and results), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'generate_image' and 'generate_video' by focusing on querying existing tasks rather than creating new content.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: '视频生成是异步任务，需要使用此工具查询任务状态' (video generation is an asynchronous task, you need to use this tool to query task status). It also references the sibling tool 'generate_video' as the source of task IDs, providing clear context about the workflow.

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