cueprecise_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that Gemini usage is an '추정' (estimation), which hints at approximate data. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, how it behaves for unknown video_ids, or what error conditions may arise.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the action (조회한다) and enumerates the four queried data categories in a clean list. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description adequately names what data is queried. However, it omits the return format/shape of results, does not define terms like '작업 상태' or '청크 진행도', and provides no context about how the status relates to the video_id lifecycle.

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 single required parameter video_id has zero documentation in both the schema and the description. Since schema coverage is 0% (below the 50% threshold), the description was required to compensate, but it never explains what video_id represents, how it is used, or what formats are acceptable.

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 queries status information (작업 상태, 청크 진행도, 산출물 존재 여부, 로컬 Gemini 사용량 추정) using the verb 조회한다, identifying a specific read operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name, though the sibling names (set_chapter_titles, excerpt, frames, purge, register, outline, summary, set_summary) make the status tool's distinct role fairly obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to check progress before other operations' or contrast it with sibling tools. The intended usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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