Check a Seedance task

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a single check, returns current state, and lists all possible statuses. It details the result structure (on success: video_url with 24h validity, resolution, aspect ratio, duration, frame rate; on failure: error_code and error_message). It also mentions task retention policy (7 days). The only minor gap is no explicit mention of whether it's a mutation or read-only operation, but the context strongly implies a safe 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance and an alternative, and the third details the response format and lifecycle. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, all required, no enums, 100% schema coverage), the tool is simple. The description covers the input (task_id), behavior (single poll, no looping), output (with detailed success/failure fields, plus video URL validity), and retention policy. An output schema exists, but the description still summarizes the key fields, which is helpful. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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 100% (the only parameter task_id has a clear description in the schema). The description adds limited additional semantic value beyond the schema, as the schema already explains it's the task ID from seedance_create_video with an example format. However, the description could have elaborated on how to obtain the task_id, but it's mostly sufficient.

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 'Check a Seedance generation task once and return its current state.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (Seedance generation task), and action scope (once). The tool is well-differentiated from siblings like seedance_wait_for_video, which is explicitly mentioned as the alternative for polling.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('quick status poll') and when not to ('if the user is waiting for the finished video, use seedance_wait_for_video instead of calling this in a loop'). It provides clear guidance on avoiding loops, which is critical for agent behavior.

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