get_video_rewrite_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious SSE first-frame behavior, defines all status codes, and explains what happens after success. This is strong transparency for a polling endpoint.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: purpose, status semantics, and downstream action. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what statuses to expect, how the upstream behaves, and where to retrieve the final rewrite artifacts. For a one-parameter status endpoint, this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents order_no as '改写任务订单号'. The description references order-related context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 opening sentence clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: querying the progress of a subtitle rewrite task. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on rewrite tasks rather than translation tasks, and the downstream references to get_video_translation_status make the distinction explicit.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool for rewrite-task progress, and after success to switch to wait_for_video_translation or get_video_translation_status with the original video order number. This provides clear when-to-use and next-step alternatives without leaving the decision to inference.

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