check_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'check progress' without explaining whether the call is synchronous, what side effects exist (if any), or how the result is structured. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a step label. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and step context. The 'NUEVO' prefix is minor and does not detract significantly. It could be more structured but is efficient.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as what the tool returns (e.g., status, progress percentage, error states) and whether it can be called repeatedly. The sibling tools hint at the pipeline, but the description itself is too minimal to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter's description already explaining its origin ('obtenido de start_video_generation'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the clear verb 'Verifica' (check) and specifies the resource 'progreso de generacion de video' (video generation progress). It also notes 'Paso 2 de 3', which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like 'start_video_generation' (step 1) and 'download_completed_video' (step 3).

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 implicitly states when to use this tool by labeling it as step 2 of a 3-step pipeline. The parameter description further clarifies that the generation_id comes from 'start_video_generation'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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