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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns status information (processing, completed, failed), which covers basic output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific details are included beyond status. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and elaborating on return values in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and output. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior, but it remains efficient with 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output states but lacks depth in behavioral context (e.g., error cases or detailed return format). Without an output schema, more explanation of return values would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'video_id' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or usage tips). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get the status and details of a video generation job.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('video generation job'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_videos' or 'delete_video' beyond the focus on status retrieval. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 usage by stating it returns information about processing, completion, or failure, suggesting it should be used to check job progress. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_videos' for general listing or 'create_video' for initiation), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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