get_video_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the two-tier lookup order (durable local jobs then legacy bridge), but omits critical traits like read-only safety, idempotency, what it returns, and error handling for missing jobs.

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?

Two efficient sentences, with the compatibility alias fact front-loaded. No wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly implementation-focused at the expense of agent-relevant behavior.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the agent gets back (e.g., job status, progress, success/failure). It provides the lookup strategy but leaves return values and error cases unspecified, creating a gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as coming from generate_video. The description adds no additional meaning about the requestId format or usage beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states it is a compatibility alias for get_video_job and describes the lookup order, but it never explicitly says it retrieves video job status. The verb 'checks' is vague, and the core action is only implied by the tool name and alias relationship.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is given. It mentions being a compatibility alias and the internal lookup order, but does not say when to prefer this over get_video_job or under what conditions (e.g., legacy clients) it should be called.

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