seedance_get_config

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries burden. It reveals that API key is masked and lists returned fields (base_url, model, etc.), offering good insight into behavior. Could mention if any external calls occur, but not required for a local config read.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a bullet list of return fields. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with core action and key constraint (masked key).

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?

With no parameters and a simple read operation, the description fully covers purpose, use case, and return format. Output schema exists externally, so return description is sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds significant value by enumerating specific return fields and noting the API key masking, going well beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'runtime Seedance MCP config diagnostics', explicitly masking API key. Distinct from siblings like seedance_create_video or seedance_get_task, which focus on video creation and task status.

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?

States 'Use this tool to verify which config the running MCP process is using', providing clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives needed given the tool's specific diagnostic role.

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