get_v1_feed_videosv1 / Videos Feed Group: v1 Endpoint (Old Sora App). Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `last_id` value taken from the first response. | |
| limit | No | Result limit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, pagination, authentication, or side effects. The only added detail is billing per call, which is not behavioral tool behavior.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It wastes the opportunity to convey any useful information, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.
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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only a label and billing info, it is completely inadequate. With many sibling feed tools, differentiation is essential and entirely missing.
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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('after' and 'limit') with 100% coverage, so the schema alone is sufficient. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 is essentially a duplicate of the tool name and title: 'v1 / Videos Feed'. It lacks a verb or specific action, and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like get_v1_feed_images or get_v1_feed_top. It is tautological.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions billing, which offers no context for selection among the many feed tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.