get_video_project_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'Check') and output behavior ('Returns status, download URLs when complete'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool does, and the second specifies the return values. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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-checking tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output, but lacks context about error handling, typical status values, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description's mention of return values is helpful but could be more detailed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, where to obtain the ID). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a video project'), and provides examples of project types ('face swap, lip sync, etc'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_image_project_status', which appears to serve a similar function for image projects.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID from a creation tool), compare it to sibling tools like 'get_image_project_status', or specify when not to use it (e.g., for checking status of non-video projects).

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