Check job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that the tool is free, and when the job is completed, the response includes the permanent media URL and cost. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and adds key details efficiently.

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?

Given a single parameter, full annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context for a simple status check tool. The minor inaccuracy ('mainly videos') slightly reduces completeness but does not significantly hinder understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter job_id, the schema already explains it. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, which is acceptable. No improvement needed but no extra value either.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks job status for generation jobs, especially videos. It distinguishes from siblings like create, generate_image, generate_video, and get_balance. However, the phrase 'mainly videos' is slightly misleading because the accepted job IDs can come from both video and image generation.

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?

Description mentions 'Read-only and free', giving some context on when to use. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_status might overlap). No prerequisites or side effects are stated.

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