seedance_wait_for_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the polling action and termination conditions, but does not mention whether the call blocks synchronously, what happens on timeout (e.g., exception vs status return), or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous wording. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it omits important details that could be added without becoming bloated.

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 three parameters, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and an output schema that only covers return values, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, and how this tool relates to siblings like get_status.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. media_id, interval_seconds, and max_wait_seconds are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool poll media status until a terminal state (completed, failed, cancelled, or timeout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seedance_get_status (single status check) and seedance_create_video (video creation).

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?

The description implies usage after initiating a video creation, but does not explicitly contrast with seedance_get_status for one-off checks or state when this tool should be preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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