List recent Seedance tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only (listing tasks), notes the data retention period (7 days), and explains that finished tasks' video URLs are only fetchable within 24 hours. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention it's non-destructive, but the listing action implies this.

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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states action, scope, ordering, and optional filters. The second provides concrete use cases. The third covers data retention. Every sentence serves a distinct informative purpose with no repetition or filler.

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 has no required parameters, a fully described schema (4 params, 100% coverage), an output schema (not shown but present), and clear behavioral context (retention, ordering, use cases), the description leaves no critical gaps. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter's description is clear (model ID/endpoint ID filtering, status enum, page number/page size with bounds). The description adds context by noting common use cases (filter by status, model) but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate, and the additional context bumps it to 4.

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 specifies the action ('List recent Seedance generation tasks'), the scope ('for this account'), ordering ('newest first'), and optional filtering by status or model. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like seedance_create_video or seedance_get_video by focusing on listing tasks rather than creating or retrieving individual videos.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to recover a lost task ID, check queued tasks, or re-fetch a video URL within 24 hours. It also mentions the retention policy (7 days), setting clear boundaries on expected results. No sibling tool duplicates this list behavior, so exclusion criteria are implied.

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