get_final_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior details: the operation is free, download_url is returned only when status=completed, the URL is a direct COS link, and bgm_stale has a precise meaning with a remediation path. It could mention non-completed statuses or response shape, but for a simple query tool it discloses the key operational traits.

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 compact sentences deliver the core operation, the completion behavior, the direct-link detail, the cost implication, and a conditional remediation instruction. The most important facts (status and download_url) are front-loaded, and the bgm_stale note is clearly marked with a star. Minor redundancy ('免费' appears twice) does not meaningfully hurt.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return condition and the meaning of a significant flag. It lacks a list of all possible status values and the response envelope for non-completed states, which an agent might need for polling logic. Overall, it is complete enough for straightforward use but not exhaustive.

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 clarifies that the lone episode_id parameter refers to a specific episode ('某一集成片'), but it adds little beyond what the parameter name already implies. No additional guidance about how to obtain or format episode_id is provided, so compensation is minimal.

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 names the action explicitly — querying an episode's final-cut status and download link — and goes beyond the tool name by specifying the exact return condition ('status=completed 时返回 download_url'). It clearly identifies the resource as '某一集成片' (a specific episode's final cut), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_export or get_deliverables.

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 clear context: use this tool to inspect final-cut status and obtain a direct download link. It also provides a concrete when-not condition — if bgm_stale=true, run compose_episode instead of re-render — giving the agent an actionable decision rule. However, it does not explicitly compare against other status/export sibling tools (e.g., get_export, get_run_status), so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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