get_analysis_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. It discloses the return content (status and structured errors) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for non-existent jobs, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The query nature implies read-only but is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information without wasted words. It clearly states the action and the object, making it appropriately sized for a simple status-query tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description lacks crucial contextual cues: when to use it, what `job_id` refers to, and any prerequisites. Given the tool's minimal schema, the description is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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 description does not mention the `job_id` parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what the parameter means or how to obtain it, but it does not. The only implicit connection is that a 'video analysis task' requires an ID, which is insufficient.

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 tool queries the current status and structured errors of a video analysis task, using a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('视频分析任务'). This distinguishes it from siblings like `analyze_video` (which starts analysis) and `get_analysis_result` (which retrieves results).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be called after initiating an analysis or that it is for monitoring progress. Sibling tool names offer context but are not referenced in the description.

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