Tencent Cloud Live MCP Server

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. While it mentions the tool queries tasks and describes return values, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational transparency.

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 reasonably structured with Args and Returns sections, but contains redundant information. The parameter explanations in the description are less detailed than those in the schema, making them somewhat wasteful. The Chinese-only text limits accessibility. While not excessively verbose, the description could be more efficiently integrated with the schema information.

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 query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic functional coverage but lacks important context. It documents parameters and return values but doesn't explain the relationship between task_id and specify_task_id, doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond listing return fields, and provides no error handling information. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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 description lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with more detailed documentation (including defaults, examples, and constraints). The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it essentially repeats parameter names with less detail. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose as '查询直播拉流任务' (query live pull stream tasks), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_live_pull_stream_task' (create) and 'delete_live_pull_stream_task' (delete) by focusing on querying/describing existing tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'describe_' tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this query tool should be used instead of other describe tools (like describe_live_domain or describe_live_stream_state), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios. The parameter documentation implies query capabilities but offers no strategic guidance.

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