pika_get_generation

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the tool checks status, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention authentication requirements (api_key is a parameter but not discussed), rate limits, expected response format, or any polling behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safe usage.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core action and resource. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no superfluous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description lacks important contextual details for a polling tool. Without an output schema, it should at least hint at the return structure (e.g., status values, video URL) and provide usage hints like 'Poll this endpoint after pika_generate_video'. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the response and correct usage pattern.

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 for both parameters, so the schema itself provides adequate meaning. The description adds marginal value by hinting at generation_id through the phrase 'by ID', but it does not explain api_key or augment the parameter descriptions. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 uses a specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource 'status of a Pika video generation', and explicitly mentions the lookup method 'by ID'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pika_generate_video (which creates) and pika_list_styles (which lists options).

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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. For example, it does not state that this tool is intended for polling after pika_generate_video, nor does it mention any retry or timeout considerations.

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