heygen_avatar_get_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions polling behavior and return values, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or call frequency. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with approximately 20 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word adds value, no repetition, and it is efficiently structured for an AI agent.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (status, video_url, thumbnail_url). It does not detail error states or timeout behavior, but the sibling context (generation tool) provides enough completeness for typical use.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add new information about parameter usage beyond the schema's template values ({{heygen_result.video_id}}). Since schema already defines parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 polls for video generation progress, listing specific statuses and return fields (video_url, thumbnail_url). It distinguishes from the sibling tool heygen_avatar_generate_video, making 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 implies usage after generating a video to check progress, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Context suggests it pairs with heygen_avatar_generate_video, but more explicit guidance would improve score.

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