Get generation status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return values (PENDING, COMPLETED, FAILED) and progress availability, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention error behaviors (e.g., unknown requestId), leaving some gaps.

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 primary action and resource, followed by the return behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter, and return values. It could mention failure cases or authentication, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 100% and the 'requestId' parameter is well-described as 'Request ID from generate_video'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('Grok video generation') plus a unique identifier ('by requestId'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_video' and 'get_video' by focusing on status checking rather than creation or retrieval of the video.

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 a use-case (polling an asynchronous generation), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks the explicit 'use X instead' guidance seen in high-quality examples, so this is adequate but not exemplary.

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