gen_uthana_get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'without downloading output' but does not explain behavior like whether it returns a status, completion percentage, or errors, nor whether it is non-blocking. For a polling tool, it could clarify that it returns current status and does not wait for completion, but this is only implied by the name and lacks detail.

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 (two sentences plus an example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The knowledge base link is brief and the example is illustrative. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 the tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) but has no annotations and an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the core function and gives an example, but lacks behavioral details like return format or status codes. For an async polling tool, mentioning that it returns current job status would be valuable. The output schema might compensate, but the description itself is insufficient on its own.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds little about parameters. The example shows job_id usage but does not explain timeout_s semantics. The schema defines timeout_s with a default, but the description does not clarify that it controls polling wait time. For a tool with one undocumented parameter (timeout_s), the description could be more helpful, but the example gives some context.

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 polls an async job and mentions an example use case (video-to-motion). It is differentiated from siblings like gen_uthana_get_motion and gen_uthana_get_character by the 'without downloading output' clause. However, it could be more explicit that it is specifically for status polling and not for retrieving generated 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 gives a general purpose but does not specify when to use this tool versus the many sibling gen_uthana tools (e.g., when to poll vs. wait, when to use get_motion vs. get_job). It mentions a knowledge base link but that is external and not part of the description directly. There is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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