pika_get_generation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'check the status' without detailing what statuses exist, whether the call is idempotent, rate limits, or what the response includes. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it could mention the type of response (e.g., returns status string and optional video URL) to aid agent understanding. No key information is missing, but context is sparse.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both api_key and generation_id (generation_id 'returned by pika_generate_video'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('check the status') and the resource ('a Pika video generation by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pika_generate_video (creates) and pika_list_styles (lists styles), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage after generating a video (via generation_id from pika_generate_video), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor provide guidance on polling frequency or fallback behavior. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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