get_video_results

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe, local read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the fact that results are packaged artifacts, but says nothing about what happens if the job is incomplete, queued, failed, or nonexistent.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the space saved is spent on enumerating return fields rather than on the information that is actually missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so listing MP4/SHA-256/credits/duration is largely redundant, while the real gaps — job lifecycle prerequisites and job_id provenance — go unaddressed. Adequate to invoke, but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single job_id parameter, and the description does not compensate at all — it never mentions job_id, where it comes from, or its expected format. The parameter is therefore undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') tied to the video-result resource and enumerates what comes back (MP4, SHA-256, credits, quality report, duration). It is understandable on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the close sibling get_video_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_video_status, nor any precondition such as the job having finished rendering. The agent gets no signal that job_id must refer to a previously submitted generate_video job.

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