get_render_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the tool changes nothing, discloses the crucial lifetime constraint ("Jobs are remembered only while this server is running"), which explains how 'not_found' arises, and enumerates the exact return fields including that the error message is the tail of the log.

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 purpose and the sibling linkage are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either scope, return shape, lifetime caveat, or polling cadence. It is slightly dense in one paragraph, but there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does so completely: status values, progress range, log lines, and error semantics. Combined with the polling guidance and job-lifetime caveat, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says it is the job_id returned by generate_short or extract_clips, which is essentially what the prose repeats. The description adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail (e.g. what a malformed or stale id yields) 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Check a background job") and immediately ties it to the two sibling tools that create jobs, generate_short and extract_clips, so an agent can tell it apart from every generator in the set without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit polling contract: call every 20-30 seconds and stop when status is no longer 'processing'. Combined with the note that the job must have been started by generate_short or extract_clips, the when-to-use condition is fully specified rather than inferred.

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