simplengat_video_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important side effect: polling 1080p automatically triggers upscale when 720p finishes. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The disclosed upscale behavior adds value but many gaps remain.

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 fluff; the purpose is front-loaded. The endpoint at the end is mildly redundant but not distracting. It earns a 4 for efficiency without being overly sparse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple polling tool: it gives the core action and the key 1080p upscale behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details like return values, polling cadence, and error conditions. There are noticeable gaps for an agent to fully understand behavior, so it is not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around the 'resolution' parameter by explaining that 1080p triggers upscale, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already describes for jobId or upscaleJobId. It reaches baseline but does not elevate it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Poll video generation status.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like simplengat_generate_video or simplengat_upscale_image by indicating it is a status-checking operation. The endpoint reference reinforces the purpose.

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 use after video generation by saying 'poll' and explains the 1080p upscale trigger, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or give conditions like when not to use it. Usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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