检查 Seedance 连接

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior annotations do not: no authentication performed, no credits consumed, and the key-presence-vs-validity caveat. Those are the exact traits an agent needs to interpret a successful health response correctly.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the operation and return shape, then the caveat and the redirect to the sibling. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload, which it does by listing the three returned signals. It also closes the main interpretive risk (treating a configured key as a working key), so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning and correctly does not pad the text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only connectivity check') and enumerates what the check returns: API health, dk_ key presence, and local config file path. It also distinguishes itself from seedance_list_models by naming that sibling as the authentication verifier.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-this vs use-sibling rule: a configured key is not proof of validity, so use seedance_list_models to verify authentication. It also states the negative condition that this call does not authenticate or consume credits, removing ambiguity about its cost.

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