wait_for_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly states the polling behavior and that it returns the final status. However, it does not explain what happens when timeout_seconds is exceeded (e.g., whether it throws, returns a timeout status, or silently fails) or how invalid video_id values are handled. These are important edge cases for an agent to predict.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Poll', and every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second articulates the use case. No wasted words.

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 relatively simple polling tool, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and basic return value. It lacks details about timeout behavior and possible final statuses, but these are partially covered by the schema. It's reasonably complete given the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (video_id, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds) adequately. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 states a specific action ('Poll a video job until it completes or fails') with a clear resource and outcome. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like get_video_status, which likely performs a single status check, but the 'until it completes or fails' and 'without manual polling' infer that distinction.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'Useful for waiting on video generation without manual polling.' This gives clear context for using it as a blocking wait rather than a one-off status check. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when only a single status check is needed).

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