get_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values and the list of statuses, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., not found, invalid ID), rate limits, idempotency, or confirm that it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 just two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, and it avoids repetition of schema details.

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 read-only status-checking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the possible statuses. It is slightly lacking in behavioral edge cases (e.g., error handling) but is otherwise complete for basic selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for video_id ('The ID of the video job to check') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current status of a video generation job'. It also enumerates the return values (progress percentage and status), making it distinct from sibling tools like wait_for_video, which implies blocking or waiting behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_video. No mention of polling patterns, whether to call this repeatedly, or that this is non-blocking. The description only explains the tool's purpose without any contextual usage advice.

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