get_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it explains the meaning of not_required, warns against unnecessary work, reveals that image/video denominators exclude shots_not_applicable, and provides the remedy for bgm_stale. This is rich behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage ordering, cost, the not_required caveat, denominator handling, and bgm_stale remedy. It could be split into clearer sections, but it is not padded.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description does enough: it defines status semantics, flags dangerous misinterpretations, and explains the one common inconsistency (bgm_stale). It stops short of describing the full response shape, but that is a minor gap given the explicit status values.

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?

There is only one parameter, episode_id, and the schema already states it is a positive integer. The description's '某一集' clarifies that the tool targets one episode, but it does not explicitly name episode_id or add field-level detail. The low schema coverage is only partially compensated by the obvious parameter name.

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', query) and resource ('某一集完整工作流的进度'), enumerates the pipeline stages, and lists the exact status values. This makes it clearly distinct from more narrow status tools like get_lipsync_status or get_bgm_status.

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 actionable guidance: follow the returned order and don't skip steps, don't backfill not_required steps, and re-run compose_episode when merge_episode.bgm_stale is true. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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