video_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the blocking wait behavior, the client-timeout risk above 60 seconds, and the different return shapes for running vs. completed jobs. It does not cover error cases or what happens when the wait expires, but the core behavior is clear.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the practical wait_seconds constraint and the return behavior are front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured but wastes no words.

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 two-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: blocking semantics, timeout risk, and the shape of returned data. The main omission is how to obtain job_id and any error/timeout behavior.

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 description must compensate. It adds genuinely useful semantics for wait_seconds (recommended 20–30, hard practical limit 60 due to client timeout), but job_id is left completely unexplained—its format and origin from video_job_start are not stated.

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: querying a background job, with what it returns on completion vs. while running. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling video_job_start, so the agent must infer the relationship from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied by '查询后台任务' and the wait_seconds guidance, which signals this is a polling call after a job has been started. No explicit when-to-use or alternative-tool guidance is given, and video_job_start is never mentioned.

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