Retrieve the complete final delivery checklist and the hold condition that blocks Seedance generation, so you can verify required items and resolve the blocker before proceeding.
Get the complete final delivery checklist — what must be provided and the HOLD CONDITION that blocks Seedance generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read-only call and the description does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that the checklist contains a HOLD CONDITION blocking Seedance generation — but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the checklist is static or project-dependent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence delivering the resource and its most decision-relevant element (the blocking hold condition). Nothing extraneous, and the key term is placed at the end for emphasis without burying the purpose.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stays high-level. It is nearly complete; the only gap is workflow placement — when in the previs pipeline an agent should pull this checklist relative to validate_gate and validate_human_greenlight.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Not scored higher because the description does not say whether the checklist is global or scoped to an implicit current project context.
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?
Specific verb ("Get") plus a named resource ("complete final delivery checklist") and a summary of its contents. It partially differentiates from near-siblings like get_gate_criteria and validate_gate by emphasizing the HOLD CONDITION that blocks Seedance generation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reader infers this should be consulted before delivery/Seedance generation. There is no explicit "call this when..." statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as get_gate_criteria or validate_gate, and no ordering guidance despite the sibling set being dense with gate-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.