Get Video Status

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: although this is a GET endpoint, it auto-downloads to KENARI_OUTPUT_DIR when done, which explains the readOnlyHint=false annotation. This side effect is critical for an agent to invoke the tool safely. It does not detail auth or error handling, but the response semantics are largely covered by the output schema.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the endpoint, then packs statuses and the side effect into compact, useful phrasing. Every clause earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 single-parameter status tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the possible states, and a meaningful side effect. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the closely related sibling tools, but this is a minor omission given the simple interface.

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 already fully describes the id parameter as the Kenari video job id returned by create_video or extend_video, with 100% coverage. The description only echoes {id} in the endpoint, adding no new parameter-level 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 names a specific resource and action: 'GET /v1/videos/{id}' and 'Reports queued/rendering/done/failed/expired.' This clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like wait_for_video or download_video, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 context is implied rather than explicit. The auto-download note suggests callers may not need a separate download step when the status is done, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over wait_for_video or download_video, and no exclusions are stated.

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