SeedreamMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively establishes the polling pattern for async operations ('check if a generation/edit is complete') and implies read-only safety through the verb 'Query'. However, it lacks explicit statements about idempotency, rate limits, or error handling for invalid task_ids that would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 purpose front-loaded, followed by usage context, specific bullet points, and return value summary. There is minor redundancy between the second sentence ('Use this to check...') and the subsequent bullet points, and the Returns section is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and existing output schema. It clearly links to sibling tools (noting task_id comes from generate_image or edit_image responses) and explains the async retrieval pattern. Lacks explicit read-only safety confirmation that would ideally be in annotations.

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 for the task_id parameter, establishing the baseline score of 3. The tool description does not add additional semantic context about the parameter format, validation rules, or examples 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?

The description uses specific verb 'Query' with clear resource 'status and result of a Seedream image generation or edit task'. It distinguishes from siblings seedream_generate_image and seedream_edit_image by specifying this retrieves results from existing tasks rather than creating new ones, and from list operations by focusing on specific task retrieval.

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:' bullet list with three specific scenarios (checking completion, retrieving URLs, getting full details). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative seedream_get_tasks_batch for batch operations or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the singular 'task' scope is implied.

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