get_video_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that it runs remotely, makes at most one Google status call, never waits for rendering, downloads/stores the video when finished, and is owner-scoped. This is far beyond a minimal mutation warning and gives an agent an accurate mental model of side effects and access.

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 only three sentences and each sentence contributes: environment, operation scope, behavior, and ownership. The opening 'Catalog entry.' is slightly cryptic but not wasteful. It is front-loaded with the most important scoping information and avoids redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the call returns; it does not explicitly say the response includes status or progress information. It explains the side effect (download/stores video) but not the return value or retry_collection's effect on the response. For an agent to fully consume the result, this is a notable gap.

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 already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the mutual exclusion between recovery_id and operation_name, which is not enforced in the schema. It does not add much about retry_collection, but the schema description already covers it.

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 a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('one video operation'), and it explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_video_operations by emphasizing 'one' rather than a list. It also clarifies the execution environment ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment'), making the tool's purpose 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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for probing a single video operation and gives a concrete constraint: exactly one of recovery_id or operation_name. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the context makes the intended use clear. It also states it never waits, which helps an agent decide when to call it.

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