查询视频生成进度

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses rate-limit guidance, terminal-state semantics, signed URL expiry behavior, and retention limits. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent needs before polling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then appends polling and lifecycle guidance. The status enumeration is slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasteful.

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 read-only polling tool with annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description covers statuses, terminal states, polling cadence, URL expiry, and retention. It gives the agent everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents task_id as the ID returned by seedance_create_video. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Query task metadata and status" for a video generation task. It also enumerates the possible statuses, making the tool's role unambiguous relative to creation, listing, and download siblings.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: poll no faster than once every 10–20 seconds, recognize terminal states, refresh expired signed URLs, and download within 24 hours. It does not explicitly name seedance_download_video as the alternative for downloading, so routing is implied rather than fully stated.

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