agnes_video_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior, terminal states (completed/failed), timeout, and the return including video URL. It also gives a time estimate. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects, but covers the core behavioral traits adequately.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds key details (return value, time expectation). It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description explains the return value (final result with video URL) and mentions failure/timeout states, but lacks detail on the structure of the result or error handling. Given the complexity of a polling tool and no output schema, it is fairly complete but could be enhanced with response format examples. It also does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain model_name at all, nor does it clarify the purpose of interval_ms or timeout_ms beyond what the schema provides. Since model_name remains undocumented in both, the description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 polls an async video task by video_id until a terminal state (completed/failed) or timeout. It specifies the verb 'poll' and the resource 'async video task,' and distinguishes itself from siblings like agnes_video_create (which starts the task) and agnes_video_query (likely a non-blocking check).

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 implicitly guides usage: call this after agnes_video_create returns a video_id. It sets expectations with 'Video generation can take tens of seconds to minutes.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with agnes_video_query or give when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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