Poll FFmpeg job status

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, closed-world, non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the polling lifecycle: a status field with a terminal 'finished' value and the follow-up call that unlocks the result. It omits other possible states (failed/timeout) and any polling cadence or rate-limit guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the poll action front-loaded and the follow-up instruction second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description sensibly concentrates on the polling lifecycle and the hand-off. The remaining gap is behavioral: non-terminal/failure states and re-poll cadence are unaddressed for what is inherently a repeated-call tool.

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%, so the single parameter jobId is undocumented in both places. The description refers only to 'an FFmpeg job' and never states that jobId is the identifier returned by submit_ffmpeg_job or what format it takes; the agent must infer the link from the workflow sentence.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll the status of an FFmpeg job'), which cleanly separates it from submit_ffmpeg_job and download_ffmpeg_result in the sibling list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent generic pollers get_status / get_job_status, leaving a small ambiguity about which status tool to reach for.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional next step: when status is 'finished', call download_ffmpeg_result, and explains why (to get a publishable media_url). That is genuinely useful workflow context. It stops short of naming when to use this versus get_job_status, or how frequently to re-poll, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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