Check a render job

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a status-check tool, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the three possible states, that log lines are partial ('last log lines'), and that the manifest only appears once the job is done. It doesn't cover behavior for an unknown or expired job_id, 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the purpose, then enumerates return content in lifecycle order. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values, which is the main risk for a poll-style tool. Missing only edge behavior (invalid/expired job_id, whether failed jobs still yield a manifest) for a 5.

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% and the single parameter job_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the burden; it only implies provenance ('a job from start_highlight_reel') without stating the expected format or where to obtain the id. That is partial compensation, not full.

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+resource (job status) and enumerates the observable states (running/done/failed) plus what is returned at each stage (last log lines, manifest with outputs and verification). Naming start_highlight_reel as the producer clearly separates it from probe_video, rank_highlights, and verify_video.

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 phrase 'a job from start_highlight_reel' gives clear context for when to call this tool (after launching a render) and implicitly routes the agent to the correct workflow. It stops short of explicit polling guidance (cadence, retry, terminal-state handling) and names no exclusions, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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