get_video_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: automatic compatibility with both Jimeng and grok routes. However, it does not state the return payload shape, whether the operation is purely read-only, or any platform-specific edge cases.

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 packs all essential behavior into one compact sentence, with the routing-compatibility qualifier in parentheses. There is no redundant content or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with a single required parameter and no nested structures, the description is mostly complete: it names the action, the target, and the underlying routing abstraction. The only meaningful gap is the absence of output/status structure details, but that is minor given no output schema was declared.

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 description fully covers task_id as the id returned after submission, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The outer description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the task, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and object ('查询视频任务状态') that clearly identifies the tool's function as querying video task status. It also distinguishes the operation by mentioning automatic compatibility with Jimeng and grok '/videos/{id}' routes, which clarifies its scope beyond generation tools.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used to check video task status after submission, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling generate_video_and_wait tool or describe when polling by status is preferable. No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance is provided.

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