pika_get_generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description's status-check framing is consistent but adds no detail on polling cadence, possible status values, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 wasted words. It communicates the core operation immediately.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about returned status states, but the omission is minor for this simple status-check operation.

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 100%, so both api_key and generation_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by ID but adds no extra semantics about ID format or API key handling, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('check status') and resource ('Pika video generation by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pika_generate_video that creates generations. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the schema.

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 'by ID' implies this is used after a generation exists, and the schema links the generation_id to pika_generate_video, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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