LumaMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the efficiency characteristic ('single request') and return format ('Status and video information'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid task IDs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when the batch is empty. The 'Query' verb implies read-only safety, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Excellent structure with zero waste: single-sentence purpose declaration, efficiency justification, sibling comparison, bulleted usage conditions, and return value summary. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most critical information (batch query capability).

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 the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the tool's single well-documented parameter, and the description's coverage of purpose, sibling differentiation, and usage scenarios, the description is complete. It appropriately delegates detailed return value specification to the output schema while providing a helpful summary.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (task_ids fully documented with type, constraints, and maximum batch size of 50). With high schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description reinforces the batch nature by mentioning 'multiple tasks' but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with 'Query multiple video generation tasks at once' providing specific verb (Query), resource (video generation tasks), and scope (multiple/batch). Critically, it explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool luma_get_task by stating it is 'More efficient than calling luma_get_task multiple times,' clearly differentiating the batch use case from the single-task alternative.

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 'Use this when:' section with three specific bullet points covering multiple pending generations, batch status checks, and tracking batches. Explicitly names the alternative approach (calling luma_get_task multiple times) and explains why this tool is preferred (efficiency), 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.