kling_get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: it checks generation status, lists possible task states (pending, completed, failed), and mentions it returns video URLs and metadata. This is adequate for a read-only query 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?

The description is well-structured with a brief first line, bulleted use cases, and explicit task states. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return format. It already mentions 'Task status and generated video information including URLs and state'. For a single-parameter query tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 input schema already describes the task_id parameter with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying that the task_id comes from 'any kling_generate_* or kling_extend_* tool response', clarifying its origin 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries the status and result of a video generation task. It specifies the verb 'Query' and resource 'task', and implicitly differentiates from the batch sibling by focusing on a single task.

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 provides a clear 'Use this when' section with three specific scenarios (check completion, retrieve URLs, get details). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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