List Seedance prompt workflows

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about return content — workflows paired with search queries for finding public examples — but says nothing about output format, ordering, or scope limits. This is a modest contribution beyond the annotations, not a rich one.

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?

A single 16-word sentence with no filler. The core action ('List practical Seedance 2.0 creation workflows') is front-loaded, and the detail about search queries is appended without bloating the definition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials. Since there is no output schema, the disclosure that results include search queries carries meaningful weight. A note on the exact output structure would improve it, but it is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the input contract is fully specified by the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters, and its silence on the topic is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('practical Seedance 2.0 creation workflows') and adds that it returns search queries for finding public examples. It is implicitly differentiated from siblings (search_prompts and get_prompt target individual prompts, not workflows), but no explicit distinction is drawn.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never addresses how list_workflows relates to search_prompts, get_prompt, or build_video_prompt_brief, leaving an agent to guess which tool is appropriate for a given intent. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing statements.

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