flow_poll_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Statelessly check' is useful because it indicates a non-mutating read-only poll. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether calls are non-blocking, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'Statelessly' appears first and every remaining word contributes to the tool's purpose and identifying parameters.

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 poll tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the two key parameters, and statelessness. It still lacks lifecycle context (e.g., call only after a generation has been submitted) and does not explain profile, so an agent gets a functional but not fully rounded picture.

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 meaning to media_id and project_id by saying the check is 'by' those IDs, but it omits any explanation of the profile parameter and gives no format or value guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Google Flow completion status of a video generation'), and identifies the key IDs. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the near-twin sibling yenflow_poll_scene.

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 the tool is for polling after a video generation has been created, and 'statelessly' hints at repeatability, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion such as 'use yenflow_poll_scene for Yenflow.'

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