xhs_get_video_speech_text_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation does not trigger reprocessing and explains the wait_seconds parameter's behavior (long polling vs one-shot), enhancing behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese covering purpose and key behavioral note. It is concise and front-loaded, but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for complex scenarios.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and core behavior. However, it omits details like expected status values or response format, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The description restates that wait_seconds enables long polling but does not add novel meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 of a video speech-to-text job, specifying the resource ('小红书视频口播转文字任务状态') and action ('查询'). It distinguishes itself from submission siblings like 'xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url' by focusing on status retrieval.

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 context by mentioning optional long polling ('可选长轮询当前 job') and noting that it does not trigger reprocessing ('不触发重处理'). This guides usage, though it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings; however, the sibling list contrasts submission tools effectively.

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