vadyu_get_video_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden; it does add genuinely useful context by naming the returned artifacts, including a 'signed' MP4 URL (implying time-limited access) and a Campaign Bundle. However, it omits key behavioral details for a polling tool: possible status values, what happens while rendering is incomplete, error behavior for unknown IDs, and any rate/polling guidance.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no filler. The long enumeration of return fields is dense but each item earns its place; it would read better split into an action clause and a returns clause.

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 compensates well by enumerating the return payload (status, timeline, coherence score, video_url, Campaign Bundle), and the inputs are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases for polling, which is minor for a low-complexity three-parameter tool.

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% and all three parameters (video_id, video_ids, export_format with its four enum meanings) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the ID-addressing modes and adds no syntax, precedence (video_id vs video_ids), or format-selection guidance 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 gives a specific verb ('Poll') plus the exact resource (rendering status, beat progress, coherence score, signed MP4 URL, Campaign Bundle) and states both addressing modes (numeric video_id or batch video_ids[]). This clearly separates it from vadyu_list_videos (enumerate) and vadyu_generate_video_ad (create), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 verb 'Poll' implies the check-until-ready workflow, and the batch wording hints at aggregating matrix renders, but the description never states when to use this versus vadyu_list_videos or vadyu_get_account_quota, nor any prerequisite (e.g. call after vadyu_generate_video_ad). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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