Check Generation Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns progress and file details, but it does not mention non-destructive behavior, polling limitations, or error conditions. This is adequate but minimal for a status check tool.

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?

Two short, clear sentences convey the purpose and return value with no filler. Well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple single-parameter status tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. The existence of an output schema means return format specifics need not be duplicated here. Sibling tools provide enough context for placement.

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 coverage is 100% with the request_id parameter already described as 'Request ID from generate_visual.' The description adds no further parameter detail, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.

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 'Check' with a clear resource: 'status of a visual generation request.' It explicitly states what is returned ('progress information and file details'), making it distinct from sibling tools like generate_visual or download_visual.

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 implies usage after a generation request, reinforced by the parameter description 'Request ID from generate_visual.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_and_wait, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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