query_video_generation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only/no-cost behavior, the side effect of downloading on status=succeeded, signed URL validity of ~9 hours, and the instruction to write immediately. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a tool with no 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 compact with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature, then states the success behaviorasio and usage warning in separated, scannable 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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow: query, success download, path stability, URL expiry, and separation from submit. The only minor gap is that non-success return behavior is not explicitly described, though the tool name and first phrase imply a status response.

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% and both parameters already have rich descriptions: task_id provenance and 7-day validity, output_file_path semantics including same-path polling and write-on-succeeded. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb and resource: '查询一次视频任务状态' (query a video task status), and notes read-only/non-billing. It also differentiates from the sibling submit_video_generation by warning not to use repeated submit calls. Clear and unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: only call after obtaining task_id, and do not substitute repeated submit calls for querying. The polling behavior and same-path requirement are also clearly stated. This leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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