get_autofill_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the operation is free, the batch runs asynchronously, review tokens become invalid after content changes, per-shot/episode timing, polling constraints, and failure semantics. This goes far beyond what any annotation would typically provide.

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 a dense but efficient paragraph: core purpose and response shape first, then all critical usage constraints. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no filler 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?

For a one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it embeds the response format, specifies polling intervals, warns about token invalidation, explains failure handling, and names the downstream tools to gate on. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool 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?

The schema only declares episode_id as an integer >0 with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by repeatedly referring to '本集' (this episode), tying the sole parameter to the episode whose autofill batch is queried, and listing the associated status fields. It does not explicitly name episode_id or discuss invalid IDs, but for a single self-evident parameter this is adequate.

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 '查' (check) with a specific resource: the episode's background autofill batch, and it lists the exact status fields returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic status tools by naming the batch's origin (auto_complete / autofill_storyboards) and its AI fill-in purpose.

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 gives explicit conditions: must wait for status=done before review_storyboards/generate_frames, poll at intervals ≥10 seconds, and handle failed/fail>0 by inspecting the fail count and rerunning autofill_storyboards. This is concrete, sequential guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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