resume_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-creating nature of the call ("nothing new is submitted") and that the original key is reused, but omits permissions, cost implications, behavior when the task_id is unknown, and whether the call blocks or polls.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the non-obvious constraint (no new submission) attached. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a three-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a task-retrieval tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "With its original key" loosely gestures at key_index, but task_id and output are left entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 pair ("check and download") and resource ("an existing task") and implicitly distinguishes itself from generate_video by clarifying that nothing new is submitted. It does not name the sibling outright, and the name 'resume_video' vs. 'check and download' wording is slightly loose, but the purpose is clear.

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?

"Nothing new is submitted" implies this is for retrieving an existing task rather than creating one, which hints at the boundary with generate_video. However, no alternative is named and no conditions, prerequisites, or failure scenarios are given, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over check_key or generate_video.

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