Get processing job status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral expectations. It implies a read-only operation (status retrieval) and mentions return contents (status, logs, clips), but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require any special permissions.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 status-check tool, the description is largely complete. It mentions the statuses returned, log lines, and clips, which gives a good sense of the output. It does not cover error scenarios or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema only defines job_id as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description does not compensate by explaining the parameter, though the name is self-explanatory. Given the low schema coverage, the lack of any elaboration in the description reduces the score.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving the status of a processing job, including possible statuses and additional data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like process_video or list_clips by focusing specifically on job status.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit. It is clear that this tool should be used when checking job status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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