get_video_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavior: the poll is one-shot, status values, and the conditional download to local storage when done and materialize=true, returning public_url. However, it omits the behavior of the delete_remote parameter and does not explain the outcome when materialize=false or when the job is not done. This leaves important behavioral 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it opens with the core action, then lists statuses, and then the key conditional side effect. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool has three parameters, one conditional behavior, and an output schema that is not described. The description covers the main flow but leaves delete_remote and the non-materialized path unexplained. Given the moderate complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is not fully complete, though it covers the most critical behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains the role of materialize in the conditional download, and implicitly references request_id via 'a video job' without naming it. The delete_remote parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and effect unexplained. This is incomplete compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Poll' and the resource 'a video job once', clearly stating the one-shot polling nature. It also lists the possible statuses (pending|done|failed), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool wait_video that likely waits for completion. This is a clear and specific 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 usage via 'Poll ... once', suggesting a single status check rather than waiting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus wait_video or other alternatives, and does not provide any exclusions or context for alternating between tools. Guidance is implied but not stated.

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