agnes_video_wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose side effects. It mentions polling and timeout behavior, but omits that the tool may download the video (download defaults to true) and what happens on success or failure. This is minimal disclosure.

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 entire description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main action ('Poll') immediately.

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 tool with five parameters and no annotation assistance, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the download behavior or configuration of timeout/polling, though an output schema exists for return values.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only clarifies that video_id identifies the task. The meanings of download, output_filename, timeout_seconds, and poll_interval_seconds are left to name inference, which is insufficient compensation.

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 the specific verb 'poll' with resource 'video task' and terminal conditions (completes/fails/times out). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like video_submit (submitting) and video_status (single status check), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to block until a video task reaches a terminal state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like agnes_video_status for one-time checks, so guidance is only implied.

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