Poll FFmpeg job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=falseikuha. The description adds that the job reaches a 'completed' status and that the result is fetched via a separate call, which is useful. It doesn't disclose potential edge cases (e.g., failure states, whether polling consumes resources), but for a simple read-only poller this is acceptable.

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 tightly written sentences. The main action is front-loaded and the follow-up action is included without fluff.

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 one-parameter, read-only polling operation with an output schema, this is nearly complete. The only missing piece is the jobId source or format, but the schema and title carry that weight.

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% for the jobId parameter. The description never mentions jobId's format, origin, or how to obtain it. The name 'jobId' is self-evident, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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') plus a specific resource ('FFmpeg job status'), and the title reinforces it. It distinguishes this tool from the generic sibling get_job_status by naming the exact domain (FFmpeg).

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 gives clear context for the status result and directs the caller to download_ffmpeg_result when status is 'completed'. However, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over generic alternatives like get_job_status, nor does it say how frequently to poll.

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