Render job status

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the possible returns — queued, rendering with progress, completed with output asset and download URL, failed — which is behavioral context the annotations cannot convey and there is no output schema to carry it.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the state enumeration is compact and informative. The embedded parentheticals are slightly dense but each clause carries content an agent needs.

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 and no annotations on return shape, the description does the heavy lifting by naming every terminal and intermediate state, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to poll again. The remaining gaps — polling guidance and whether 'failed' carries an error reason — are minor for a one-parameter status lookup.

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 0% for the single parameter renderJobId, so the schema itself explains nothing. The description partially compensates by tying the id to vivid_render_project, telling the agent where the value comes from, but it says nothing about format, validity, or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 resource ('Status of a render job') and scopes it to jobs 'created with vivid_render_project', which distinguishes it from the generic job endpoints. However, the sibling set contains vivid_job_status and vivid_music_status, and the description never explicitly contrasts itself with vivid_job_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'created with vivid_render_project' implies the natural workflow (call render, then poll this), which is real usage guidance. But it stops short of instructing when to poll versus when to stop, and gives no exclusion against vivid_job_status, leaving the agent to infer the alternative case.

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