Venice Video Retrieve / Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses POST method, status enum values, and auth methods. However, it does not state whether the operation is pure read-only (or if it has side effects), or describe response structure, error conditions, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second adds essential details (status enum, method, auth). No redundant or unnecessary 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 the tool's simplicity (status check with 3 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, status values, auth. Missing details include response format, polling recommendations, and behavior when job not found or errors.

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 67%, and the description only references model and queue_id in the body format without adding semantic value beyond the schema descriptions. The optional parameter delete_media_on_completion is not mentioned, leaving it undocumented.

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 checks status of a queued video job, with specific verb 'Check status' and resource 'video job'. It distinguishes from siblings like venice_music_status by specifying 'video', and mentions status enum values, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like venice_video_complete or polling strategies. It implies use after venice_video_generate by mentioning queue_id origin, but does not elaborate on context or preconditions.

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