katto_get_rerender

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it names the response fields and spelling out that clip_url stays the undubbed re-render while the dub lands in dub_urls keyed by language, and that clip_url is null until 'completed'. It repeats the read-only hint already present in annotations, but the null/status semantics are genuinely additive.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the read-only/call-site facts, then the return contract. Every clause (dub_urls mapping, null semantics) 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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the call site, the response shape, and the null/status lifecycle completely. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description implicitly clarifies that rerender_id comes from rerender/dub, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (poll) plus resource (a re-render) and explicitly ties the tool to the two producers, katto_rerender_clip and katto_dub_clip. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like katto_get_job or katto_get_clips without opening 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?

Clearly states the context of use: poll a re-render that was started by katto_rerender_clip or katto_dub_clip, i.e., the follow-up call after kicking off work. No explicit when-not guidance or terminal-state handling instructions, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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