gemini_check_video_tool

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Check the status' implies a harmless read operation, which is positive. However, it doesn't explain what statuses mean, whether agents should poll repeatedly, or how to handle non-terminal states. Since an output schema exists, return values are partially covered.

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 clear sentence that states purpose in 9 words. Front-loaded with the action 'Check the status' and the context 'video generation operation.' No wasted 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 status-check tool with one self-documenting parameter and an output schema, the minimal description is borderline adequate. It doesn't explain polling semantics or terminal states, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of gemini_generate_video_tool as context, it's acceptable though not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single operation_name parameter well-described ('The operation name from gemini_generate_video'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies.

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 single sentence clearly identifies the verb (check), the object (status), and the context (video generation operation). The purpose is unambiguous even without reading the schema. Could be enhanced by listing what status values the agent might encounter, but the core purpose is fully stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. There's no mention that the operation_name comes from gemini_generate_video_tool (though the parameter schema references it), and no polling/status-interpretation guidance. The sibling list shows a generate_video_tool exists but the description doesn't connect them.

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