Check clip generation status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is a polling (read-only) operation via GET HTTP method, which discloses the non-destructive nature. Does not mention rate limits or error cases but is sufficient for a simple status checker.

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?

Single sentence, under 20 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant information.

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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, and the relationship to generate_clip. No gaps.

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 0% with one parameter 'jobId'. Description compensates slightly by indicating the job comes from generate_clip, but does not add format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter and contextual hint.

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?

Clearly states the action 'poll' and resource 'clip-generation job status', explicitly references the sibling tool 'generate_clip' that starts the job, and distinguishes from other sibling tools by focusing on status checking.

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?

Implies usage context: after calling generate_clip to check job status. Mentions the HTTP endpoint but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools. Context is clear enough for an agent.

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