katto_get_rerender

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reveals the return shape and the important null-until-completed semantics of clip_url. This helps the agent interpret polling results correctly.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted words. The read-only safety marker is front-loaded, followed by the polling purpose and the return contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description covers purpose, initiating tools, return shape, and the key null behavior. Annotations provide the safety profile, and the schema documents both required parameters. Nothing essential is missing.

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 describes both parameters fully, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal new parameter-level detail, though it does clarify that rerender_id comes from the rerender/dub response. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('poll'), a specific resource ('re-render'), and explicitly names the tools that start it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like katto_get_job and katto_cancel_job.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after calling katto_rerender_clip or katto_dub_clip. It does not explicitly mention which sibling alternatives to avoid, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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