get_video_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the download side-effect and default behavior, plus output_dir semantics, but does not explain whether the tool polls/waits for completion, returns immediate status, or how failures are handled.

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: a one-line summary followed by a focused Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, download behavior, and a key constraint (24h validity). It misses explicit polling/failure behavior, but is otherwise complete for a status-check tool.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters: source and validity of task_id, optional model, download default true, and output_dir relative path semantics. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 function: '查询视频生成任务状态' (query video generation task status) with an optional download action. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_video and generate_image.

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 context through 'task_id: generate_video 返回的任务 ID' (task ID returned by generate_video), indicating this is a follow-up step after video generation. It also notes a 24-hour validity window, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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