get_vocal_animation_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains streaming behavior ('Mouth positions stream in as they are produced'), that completed_visemes fills during execution, and that the outcome differs depending on job type (character_id saves, portrait returns frames). This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense, with zero filler. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then explains runtime behavior, then completion behavior.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: how to identify the job, what streams during execution, and what happens on completion for both job types. Minor gaps exist (e.g., how to determine job failure or when to stop polling), but it is functionally complete for most use cases.

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 single parameter job_id already has a clear description ('Job ID returned by vocal_animation'). The tool description adds only mild redundancy ('by its job_id') and no new parameter-level detail, 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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('status and result of a vocal_animation job by its job_id'). It also distinguishes this from the generic sibling get_job_status by scoping it to vocal_animation jobs and describing job-type-specific results.

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 context implies it should be used after launching a vocal_animation job to poll for status/result, and it explains what happens during and after the job. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with the generic get_job_status sibling or state when NOT to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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