get_video

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it's a read operation returning status and download URL, with optional auto-download via outputDir. It does not mention side effects, but 'Get' implies non-destructive. The description adds context beyond minimal.

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?

Three concise sentences: first frames purpose, second lists parameters and returns, third notes optional auto-download. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, outputs (progress, status, download URL), and optional behavior. It lacks mention of error cases, prerequisites (e.g., needing to have called generate_video first), or authentication needs, but is fairly complete for a simple status-checking tool.

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 has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description explains videoId (required), taskId (optional for identifying task), and outputDir (for auto-download). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though formats and constraints are not detailed.

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 retrieves the status of a video generation task and optionally downloads it. The verb 'Get' and resource 'video generation task' are specific. Siblings 'generate_image' and 'generate_video' are distinct, so no confusion.

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 use after initiating a generation task but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The context of siblings suggests usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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