studio_status

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: statelessness, polling lifecycle, return fields, and the critical caveat that a pending URL is provisional until media_ready. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value, including return fields and the provisional URL caveat.

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 description fully covers the polling workflow, status fields, trust caveat, and producer relationship. With an output schema present and read-only annotations, no significant gaps remain.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that notebook accepts a name or ID and that task_id comes from studio_generate. This gives meaningful semantic meaning to both parameters, though it leaves some type/format details to the schema.

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 ('Poll') and clearly identifies the resource ('a generation task's status'), explicitly scoping it to generation tasks and referencing studio_generate. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like research_status or share_status.

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 tells the agent to pass the task_id from studio_generate and to poll until done, establishing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the producer relationship and polling pattern are sufficient guidance.

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