slideshow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status flow (draft → generating → rendering → completed/failed) and conditional return of video_id/video_status. This is good behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or side effects (which are minimal for a status check).

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The status flow line and args section are efficient with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter status tool, the description is fairly complete: it covers the polling interval, status flow, and when video info appears. However, it lacks explicit mention of the main return fields (e.g., status, progress) beyond the conditional video info, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 schema provides zero description for slideshow_id (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter is 'The slideshow ID from generate or create', giving the source and expected value.

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 checks 'slideshow generation/rendering progress', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_slideshow and create_slideshow by focusing on status polling.

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?

Provides clear usage context: poll every 5-10 seconds, and explains the slideshow_id comes from generate or create. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.

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