Check a Movoa run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation and that the video URL is returned only when ready, but it omits polling behavior, failure states, and what the response looks like beyond the URL, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording. The core action and the return condition are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, the definition covers the essential purpose and return condition. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention status values or failure cases, but the schema handles the wait parameter and the tool's scope is narrow.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the run_id provenance and the wait polling behavior. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the structured schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb (read), resource (status of a run), and result (video URL when ready). It explicitly ties the tool to runs started with generate_video, distinguishing it from that sibling and from credits.

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?

Usage is implied by 'started with generate_video,' which tells the agent this is a follow-up tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, how often to call it, or what to do if the run has not started.

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