poll_video_processing

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

The description discloses the polling loop, default timing, and termination conditions (ready, failed, max attempts). However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter definitions in a list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers parameters and polling behavior adequately for basic usage. However, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., what 'ready' or 'failed' looks like) and does not specify error states or handling. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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?

All three parameters are explained with their purpose and defaults, including the equivalence of max_attempts to minutes. The schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 polls video processing status until ready, failed, or max attempts. It uses a specific verb (poll) and resource (video processing status), distinguishing it from siblings like upload_video_asset or get_video_details.

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 implies usage after upload_video_asset by mentioning 'video_id from upload_video_asset'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is implicit but not fully clear.

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