agnes_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch the current status' is minimal and does not reveal whether this is a poll, whether it errors on unknown video_ids, or any other behavioral traits. There is no mention of return format or side effects, though the output schema may cover returns.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word adds value.

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 status-fetch tool, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks usage context, such as when to call it relative to submission, and does not explain the status values. Given the simple schema and output schema, it is minimally viable but could be improved with workflow guidance.

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 has one parameter (video_id) with no description (schema_description_coverage 0%). The description only repeats the parameter name ('by video_id') without adding extra meaning like where to obtain it (e.g., from agnes_video_submit) or any format requirements. This does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'current status for an Agnes video task' and identifies the key identifier 'video_id'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agnes_video_submit, agnes_video_wait, and agnes_video_generate, which have different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a non-blocking status check compared to agnes_video_wait, nor does it explain the typical workflow (e.g., after submitting a video task). The description implies a simple status fetch but gives no context or exclusions.

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