get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response carries status and a download URL, but says nothing about terminal vs in-progress states, failure statuses, or polling cadence — the behavioral details that matter most for a poll-style 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description does at least name the two returned values (status and download URL), which is the essential shape. It still lacks the taskId provenance and any enumeration of status values or error behavior that an agent polling a job needs.

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% for the single parameter, taskId, so the burden falls entirely on the description, and it provides none. It does not say where taskId comes from (presumably generate_video) or what form it takes, leaving the only input undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('your video task') plus the two things it yields: status and download URL. That is enough to distinguish it from a generation or listing tool, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Poll' implicitly signals repeated invocation after starting a task, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus list_tasks, how often to poll, or what to do once a terminal state is reached.

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