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 behavioral burden; it does disclose the important trait that this is a read-only status lookup that never creates a generation. It omits whether the call is retryable, what happens for invalid/expired job IDs, or whether the job state may be terminal.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the disambiguating constraint placed immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers action, scope, and the key non-creating constraint. The main remaining gap is that with no output schema, it never indicates what 'estado' contains (status values, progress, output URL).

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone says nothing about job_id. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the ID may be either local or remote, but it gives no format, example, or origin for those ID types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta o estado de uma tarefa de vídeo existente pelo ID') and scopes it to existing jobs. The closing clause 'Nunca cria uma nova geração' implicitly separates it from generate_video, though no sibling is named 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?

The negative constraint ('Nunca cria uma nova geração') tells the agent this is not a generation call, which is useful routing. However, it never says when to call it instead of download_video or how it fits after generate_video (polling an existing job), so usage is only implied.

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