check_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It details the return dict (task_id, video_id, status, progress, video_url, seconds, size, error), which is transparent about output. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it can be called multiple times, or if there are side effects. The description covers the output but lacks operational context.

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 structured as a docstring with clear sections: purpose, args, and returns. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and the most important information (purpose and parameter origins) is front-loaded.

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 status-check tool with two parameters and an output schema (detailed in the description's returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter sources, and return fields, providing sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that both video_id and task_id are returned from text_to_video, and are alternative identifiers. This adds critical context beyond the bare schema, enabling correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the status of a video generation task.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like text_to_video (which initiates generation) and text_to_image (different modality).

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 explicitly ties the parameters to the output of text_to_video, indicating the context of use: after initiating a video generation task. It also notes that the two parameters are alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for other scenarios.

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