aetherwave_list_image_modelsReturns every image-generation model AetherWave supports, with its credit cost, default aspect ratio, supported inputs (T2I vs I2I), and any model-specific options. Call this before generate_image when you don't know the right model ID. The model key (e.g. 'grok-imagine-t2i') is what you pass as model to generate_image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail about the returned fields (credit cost, aspect ratio, inputs, options) and how the model key is used downstream. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the tool is a simple list with zero parameters, so the added context is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and return fields; the second sentence gives actionable usage guidance. 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and why it matters. It is complete for its purpose and requires no further elaboration.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining that the returned model key is what you pass to generate_image, which clarifies the connection to another tool's parameter even though this tool itself has no inputs.
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 that the tool returns every image-generation model AetherWave supports, listing specific fields (credit cost, aspect ratio, input types, options). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aetherwave_list_video_models by explicitly focusing on image models.
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 says 'Call this before generate_image when you don't know the right model ID', giving a clear when-to-use directive and tying it to a sibling tool. It also implies that generate_image is the consumer of the model key, providing practical context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct media operation (image, video, audio, listing, mastering, etc.) with clear boundaries. Even similar tools like generate_image and edit_image are differentiated by their primary intent (creation vs. modification) and model selection guidance.
All tools follow the 'aetherwave_verb_noun' pattern consistently, using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are descriptive and predictable (e.g., generate_image, list_video_models, remove_background_video).
16 tools is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but remains well-scoped for a multimedia generation platform covering image, video, audio, and user management. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no obvious bloat exists.
The tool surface covers core creation, editing, listing, and enhancement workflows for images, videos, and audio. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete tool, no get-single-creation tool), but the essential lifecycle is well-covered.