replicate_status

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the response contains (token-set state, account, default models, job statuses), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the status data.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no padding, and the unconditional outputs are front-loaded before the session-conditional clause. However, the semicolon splices two unrelated ideas and the opening 'Is a ...' wording is grammatically broken, hurting scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating the returned categories (token set, account, default models, per-session job states), which is the essential information for a status tool. The absence of any clarification on how to interpret error-state jobs or stale tokens is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that the session parameter changes the response to that session's job list, but the accepted id/path/rename semantics live entirely in the schema.

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?

It names the resource (Replicate token/account/default video models) and the conditional scope (a session's Replicate jobs across running/done/error states), so an agent can tell it apart from `replicate` and `replicate_model`. The phrasing is a fragmentary 'Is a ...' construction, but the enumerated outputs make the purpose concrete.

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 via 'with session, its Replicate jobs', telling the agent that omitting session yields account-level status while supplying it scopes to that session. It never states when to prefer this over `get_job`, `replicate`, or `replicate_model`, and gives no explicit exclusions.

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