Get See Dance 2 resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/closed-world profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'without fetching external content' tells the agent this tool performs no network/outside lookups. However, it doesn't disclose what the returned 'resource' actually looks like (text? URL? structured template?), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 zero waste. The action and resource scope are front-loaded, and the behavioral qualifier ('without fetching external content') is appended at the end. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 dead-simple tool (one optional parameter with an enum, strong read-only annotations, closed world), the description covers resource categories and the no-fetch behavior sufficiently. The main remaining gap is return-value format, which is left to the agent's inference since no output schema exists — a minor shortfall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the enum values (all, prompting, workflows, references, safety) have no per-value explanations. The description partially compensates by naming the four resource categories in its prose, which maps roughly to the enum, but it never spells out what each topic value returns and never clarifies what 'all' bundles together. Meaning is added but the compensation is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical See Dance 2 prompting, workflow, reference, or safety resources'), and enumerates the four resource categories. The qualifier 'without fetching external content' adds a meaningful scope note that separates this from content-fetching tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action (return resources vs build/plan/diagnose) differentiates it clearly enough.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or explicit routing to alternatives. Siblings (build_seedance_prompt, plan_reference_sequence, diagnose_seedance_prompt) all involve creating or analyzing prompts, and this tool returns resources — but this contrast is only implied, never stated. No conditions describe when an agent should pick this tool over a sibling.

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