Diagnose a Seedance-oriented prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds what aspects it checks, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the output format or any potential side effects (though read-only implies none). Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not deep behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the checked aspects. There is no fluff or repetition, and every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately concise for a single-purpose diagnostic tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent can expect as a result. It only lists what is checked, not what the output will be (e.g., a score, list of issues, or pass/fail). An agent cannot know how to interpret the result or take subsequent actions. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool, making the description incomplete.

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 schema has 0% coverage for the single 'prompt' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does mention that prompts can be in English or Chinese, which gives some language guidance, but it does not explain expected format, structure, or provide examples. This is marginal compensation for the missing schema coverage, and the parameter is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resource (English or Chinese prompts) and the specific aspects examined (motion, camera direction, lighting, continuity, preserved reference tokens). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like build_seedance_prompt (which constructs prompts) and plan_reference_sequence (which plans sequences). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to diagnose/check a Seedance prompt) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It does not state 'use this instead of X' or specify conditions when it should not be used. The sibling names suggest a workflow, but the description fails to route the agent explicitly.

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