KlingMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the efficiency characteristic and return structure ('Status and video information for all queried tasks'), but omits error handling behavior, partial failure scenarios, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be critical for a batch operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, efficiency rationale, usage conditions, returns). The bullet points effectively front-load key usage scenarios. Minor redundancy exists between 'Efficiently check' and 'More efficient than,' but overall every sentence earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is appropriately complete. It covers purpose, sibling differentiation, usage scenarios, and return values. It could be improved by mentioning error handling for invalid task IDs, but the core functionality is sufficiently documented.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the task_ids parameter including the 50-task limit. The description mentions 'multiple tasks' but does not add semantic context, constraints, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with the specific action 'Query multiple video generation tasks at once' (verb + resource + scope). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool kling_get_task by stating it is 'More efficient than calling kling_get_task multiple times,' making the selection criteria unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance via 'Use this when:' bullet points covering multiple pending generations, batch status checks, and tracking scenarios. It explicitly names the alternative single-task tool (kling_get_task) and explains the efficiency advantage, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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