get_video_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses possible status values and mentions progress, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, how errors are handled, or what the response structure will look like. Moderate transparency for a simple status-check tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The status value enumeration is informative and adds value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter status tool, the description covers the core operation and enumerates status values. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not clarify what 'progress' means or describe the response format, leaving some ambiguity. It is still largely complete for its simplicity.

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 the schema description already states that video_id is returned from create_video. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('current status and progress of a video generation job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status polling, and the enumeration of status values reinforces the purpose.

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 creating a video job but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or exclude alternatives. No mention of 'use after create_video' or comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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