query_video

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core behavior: a task query that returns status/progress and video_url only when completed, implying asynchronous polling. It stops short of describing auth requirements, failure/error states, or whether the operation is safe/read-only.

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 two short sentences (English + Chinese) with no filler and the main result statement first. The Chinese sentence earns its place by adding the poll-after-create usage context, though it is slightly redundant with 'Query'.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description only partially covers what an agent needs: it gives return fields and the create_video pairing, but not the meaning of api_key/base_url or non-success behavior. This is adequate for happy-path polling but incomplete for robust invocation.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description only mentions video_id ('按 video_id 轮询进度'). It never explains api_key or base_url, which are optional but still part of the invocation surface. Thus the description partially compensates but leaves most parameter semantics to inference.

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?

States a specific action ('Query an agnes-video-2.5-flash task') and describes the observable result ('Returns status/progress and video_url when completed'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_video or generate_video, which are creation operations rather than polling operations.

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 Chinese trigger explicitly frames the tool as a poller: '视频创建后，用此工具按 video_id 轮询进度（配合 create_video 使用）', meaning after video creation, poll by video_id in conjunction with create_video. It gives clear when-to-use context but doesn't spell out when not to use it or mention alternative query tools.

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