Check a generation job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns current status and the download URL once finished, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool blocks until completion, whether it can be called repeatedly, or what happens if the job failed. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return value is stated concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and where the task id comes from. It could mention error cases or whether the tool is non-blocking, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema already documents the task_id parameter. The description adds context by explaining that the task id comes from a job started by generate_video or generate_image, which is helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: checking a job started earlier by generate_video or generate_image using its task id. It specifies the resource (generation job), the action (check status), and the return value (status and download URL once finished). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the tools that start the jobs.

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 when to use this tool: after starting a job with generate_video or generate_image, and it mentions using the task id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the polling/status-check tool for generation jobs.

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