Check an emaki run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful output trait ('its URL when it is ready') and implies a non-mutating read, but says nothing about other terminal states (failure, expiry) or polling/latency behavior beyond what the schema's 'wait' parameter already documents.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (status, source tools, URL-on-ready) contributes information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it covers only the success case (a URL when ready). It omits the pending/other status values an agent would need to branch on, leaving a meaningful gap for a status-polling tool.

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%, and both parameters (run_id, wait) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the status of a run') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact tools that create the run (generate_video, generate_image). An agent can immediately tell this is the polling/read companion to the generation tools.

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 implicitly and clearly scopes usage to runs created by generate_video or generate_image, which is the key routing condition among siblings. It does not state any exclusions or edge cases (e.g., how long run records persist), but the primary when-to-use context is present.

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