get_video_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status (done/pending) and video URL when completed, and that it can download the video. It doesn't mention edge cases like errors or polling behavior, but it is transparent about the main actions and outcomes.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or redundant information; each sentence earns its place by covering status, return value, and download capability.

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-checking tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, return values, and usage guidance. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the sibling tool references.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, and the schema already explains that `output_path` implies `download` and that `operation_name` comes from sibling tools. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a video generation operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate or modify videos. It also specifies the additional capability of downloading the completed video, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it after `generate_video` with `wait: false`, providing a concrete usage context. It also names the sibling tools that return the `operation_name`, giving clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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