veo_check_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context that the tool monitors the subprocess rather than the Gemini API directly, and that the subprocess handles API polling. It does not detail potential edge cases like subprocess failure or return behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making this sufficient for a 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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: clarifying the subprocess architecture and mentioning the alternative tool. No wasted words.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the tool's role in the generation workflow, how it relates to the API, and when to choose an alternative. The return values are presumably covered by the output schema, so no further description is needed.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the description 'Session ID returned from veo_generate_video.' The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 opens with 'Check the status of a video generation subprocess,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from direct API queries by explicitly stating 'not the Gemini API directly' and contrasting with veo_check_operation.

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 explains when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'This monitors the subprocess... If the generation has an operation_id, you can also use veo_check_operation to directly query Google's API.' This gives explicit usage context and a named alternative.

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