dubbing_project_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by listing what state is reported, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown project_id, whether the read is cheap/safe to poll, or how partial/in-progress work is represented. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the returned state. Every clause carries information; there is no boilerplate or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter read and an output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be repeated here. The enumeration of the reported state plus the annotations makes it callable with confidence. The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling tools.

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% and the description never mentions project_id, so it adds no meaning about the one required parameter. The parameter is largely self-explanatory by name and title, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description contributes nothing about format, source, or what happens with an invalid id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') against a specific resource ('a project's state') and enumerates the state contents: speakers/voices, translated and rendered languages, output paths. That is far more concrete than the name alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like dubbing_check_setup or dubbing_get_segments, which also surface per-project information.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it before rendering, instead of dubbing_check_setup, or as a polling mechanism during a running project. Usage is only implied by the word 'state'.

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