SoraMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses efficiency characteristics ('Efficiently check', 'single request') and return value summary ('Status and video information'). However, lacks details on error behavior for invalid task IDs, partial failure handling, or rate limiting considerations for batch operations.

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 statement, efficiency rationale, usage guidelines, and return value. Every sentence adds distinct value (efficiency claim, comparative advantage, specific use cases). Appropriately front-loaded with no redundant or filler text.

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 low complexity (single array parameter, no nested objects) and existence of output schema, description adequately covers all necessary context: purpose, efficiency advantages, usage scenarios, and return value summary. No critical gaps remain for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 max batch size note). With complete schema coverage, baseline score applies. Description does not add parameter syntax details or examples beyond the schema, but none are needed given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 specific verb 'Query' and resource 'video generation tasks', clearly stating the batch scope ('at once'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool sora_get_task by stating it is 'More efficient than calling sora_get_task multiple times', leaving no ambiguity about when to use which tool.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use this when:' section with three concrete scenarios (multiple pending generations, several videos at once, tracking a batch). Implicitly defines the alternative (single task checks) by referencing the singular sibling tool, providing clear selection criteria.

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