get_project_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'current processing step and any generated clips', which adds some context about output behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes to understanding, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints from output details.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output hints but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in a real-world context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'project_id returned from generate_clips', which provides slight contextual meaning but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('clip generation project'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on status retrieval rather than generation, listing, or downloading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_projects' in terms of scope (single vs. multiple projects).

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 by referencing 'project_id returned from generate_clips', suggesting it should be used after clip generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' for overviews or 'get_clip' for specific clip details, and it doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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