SeedreamMCP

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 successfully discloses the return format ('Formatted table') and content (descriptions, capabilities, pricing), but omits other behavioral traits like rate limiting, caching behavior, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a complete picture.

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 clear visual hierarchy: purpose statement first, followed by usage conditions bullet points, and return value specification. No redundant text; every sentence provides distinct value (purpose, trigger conditions, output format).

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description appropriately explains what the output contains (formatted table with descriptions) without needing to detail return values exhaustively. Minor gap: could mention if the model list is static or dynamic, but adequate for the complexity level.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rubric, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond the schema itself.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('Seedream models') and clarifies scope ('capabilities and pricing'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like seedream_list_sizes (which likely lists image dimensions) and the generation/editing tools by focusing on model enumeration rather than image manipulation.

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 concrete scenarios (availability queries, model selection help, capability comparison). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'don't use this to check task status, use seedream_get_task instead').

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