Check an afterAI render's 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 return content (progress percent, current stage, download link) and implies a read-only operation. It does not cover error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid job id), but for a status-check tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and identifier, and follows with the return details. Every word contributes necessary information with no 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the source of the identifier, and the expected return fields. It misses potential details about polling behavior or error conditions, but for a simple status check it is largely complete.

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?

The schema description for jobId is 100% covered ('The job id returned by edit_video') and the tool description restates the same fact. Since the schema already provides the essential meaning, the description adds no further semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Look up'), a resource ('live status of a submitted edit'), and the required identifier ('job id'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing edit_video as the source of the job id, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool by stating the job id is returned by edit_video, which indicates it should be used after an edit submission. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for slight ambiguity relative to what is possible.

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