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 discloses the key non-obvious behavior: the call is asynchronous and returns immediately with a task_id, with progress and results available only through another tool. It could add failure/reversibility details, but the async handoff is well communicated.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core action, the second covers the async contract and points to the monitoring sibling. No filler or redundancy; 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?

For an 11-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it sets expectations for async invocation and result retrieval. It could briefly mention the iteration dependency on ref_task_id, but that is already fully documented in the schema and action parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents, but it doesn't need to; the schema provides thorough meaning for all 11 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('a complete video') and explicitly covers the iterate-on-prior case, distinguishing it cleanly from the only sibling, maestro_get_task. No ambiguity about what this tool produces.

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 states the asynchronous flow: this tool returns immediately with task_id, then directs the agent to maestro_get_task for monitoring and output retrieval. It gives explicit routing to the alternative tool and makes the division of labor clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it mentions 'live progress' suggesting polling. However, it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-freeness, error behavior, or rate limits. It provides baseline transparency but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description sufficiently states what it does and what it returns. It is complete for the tool's complexity and relies appropriately on the output schema for return details.

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 already covers the task_id parameter fully (100% coverage), with a clear description 'Task ID returned by maestro_create_video.' The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('live progress and final outputs for one Maestro video task'). It explicitly scopes to a single task, distinguishing it from siblings like 'maestro_list_tasks' (listing) and 'maestro_create_video' (creating).

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 phrase 'for one Maestro video task' clearly implies this is for a single task, contrasting with the sibling list tool. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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