Venice Music Retrieve / Status

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

Annotations mark it non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, but description explicitly notes it's a POST endpoint with body and describes return format changes over job lifecycle. It adds auth options (x402 or API key) which are useful behavior context. However, it doesn't explain polling cadence, what 'PROCESSING' progress looks like, or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then details on return types and auth in a compact three-sentence block. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description covers the return shapes and auth sufficiently. It leaves out polling guidance and error handling, which are minor for a status-check tool. Overall it's near-complete for the tool's complexity.

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 low (33%), and description compensates by noting the POST body includes {model, queue_id}. It doesn't describe delete_media_on_completion, but the schema has a description for that parameter, and the description does not need to duplicate it. The added context of the request shape is valuable.

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?

Clearly states it checks status of a queued music job, with specifics about return formats (JSON progress, base64 resource, or download_url). Distinguishes from venice_music_generate implicitly by referencing queued jobs, though it doesn't name the generate sibling explicitly.

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?

Implied usage: call after a music job is queued, likely following venice_music_generate. But no explicit when-to-use vs. venice_music_complete, nor when polling should stop. The mention of venice_music_complete in the delete_media parameter hints at a workflow but is not framed as guidance.

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