get_seedance_task

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which provides some transparency, but with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential errors, whether the call blocks/waits for completion, or any rate limits—significant gaps for a task-status operation.

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?

One clear, single-sentence description that conveys the core purpose without any redundant words or fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks details about return values (e.g., expected statuses, result format) and any edge cases. Since there is no output schema, the description should have offered more context to be fully complete.

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 already describes task_id fully, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('status and result of a PiAPI task'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_seedance_task (creates) and download_file (downloads).

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 implied as a way to retrieve task status/result, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of polling patterns, or exclusions. It serves as a natural follow-up to create_seedance_task, but this connection is not articulated.

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