video_agent_query

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return values, the temporary nature of the URL (valid 9h), and the status values. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error cases. The 'poll' keyword implies repeated calls, which is sufficient.

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 that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then details the return.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values. It mentions the polling nature implicitly. Could be improved by clarifying that repeated calls are needed until a terminal status.

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?

The only parameter (task_id) has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the verb 'poll', the resource 'video task', and explicitly lists the return values (status and temporary video URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like video_agent_create by focusing on querying an existing task.

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 usage after creating a task but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it should be called repeatedly until completion. No exclusion guidance is provided.

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