Get a C Dance AI prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the prompt is 'sanitized' and that media is included, but it does not describe edge-case behavior such as missing or invalid slugs.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key identifier-and-action information is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential workflow context: what is returned, how to identify it, and where the slug comes from. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'slug' parameter. It does so by stating the slug identifies the prompt and should come from search_prompts, which gives the agent enough semantic understanding to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('one complete sanitized Seedance 2.0 prompt and its media'), and the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). This distinguishes it from search_prompts, which finds prompts rather than retrieving a single one.

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 instructs the agent to use a slug returned by search_prompts, which establishes the correct workflow and source for the identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the slug-from-search guidance is clear and actionable.

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