Fetch Generation Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Check the status') but does not describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the status response includes (e.g., pending, completed, failed). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's functionality, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a status check with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) that would be beneficial for an agent, especially without annotations, slightly reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'messageId' parameter documented as 'Message ID to check status for'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain the messageId or its format. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('status of an image or video generation task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'create-variant' or 'reroll-image' that might also involve status checking, though those appear to be creation tools rather than status queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a messageId from a prior generation task) or specify scenarios where this is the appropriate choice among the sibling tools, such as 'generate-image' for new tasks.

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