Get run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds beyond this by detailing the response states (IN_PROGRESS, SUCCEEDED with video_url, FAILED) and the polling behavior via next_action. It does not mention timeouts or error specifics, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

Two sentences, tightly written with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the polling instruction is actionable, and every word contributes to understanding how to use the tool.

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 single-parameter status checker with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what to pass, what to expect (IN_PROGRESS vs terminal states), and how to poll. It omits futher details like next_action format or retry limits, but these are non-critical for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Pass the run_id' and implies it originates from make_ugc, but does not elaborate on the format beyond the schema's pattern. This adds minimal but useful context, just enough to infer the parameter's role.

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 verb 'Check the status' and the resource 'video generation started by make_ugc', which precisely identifies the tool's function and ties it to a specific producing tool, distinguishing it from siblings like list_actors or make_ugc.

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?

It explicitly specifies when to use this tool (after make_ugc, to check a run) and provides concrete polling guidance: repeat every ~5 seconds until reaching SUCCEEDED or FAILED. This gives clear context and no ambiguity about usage.

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