Video Fetch MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get') but doesn't explain what 'status' entails (e.g., progress percentage, success/failure, error details), response format, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps.

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, efficient phrase ('获取下载任务状态') that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero waste.

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 the tool's complexity (a status-checking operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the status includes, how to interpret results, or error handling, making it inadequate for effective agent use despite the concise phrasing.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'taskId' documented as '任务ID' (task ID). The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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 '获取下载任务状态' (Get download task status) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('download task status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'get_video_info', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskId from another operation) or comparisons to siblings like 'list_tasks' for broader status overviews, leaving usage unclear.

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