List the video models available for MANUAL mode plus the auto-generate pipeline (id "vivideo-auto"). Each model lists its operations, allowed durations, resolutions, aspect ratios, style presets and per-second credit rate — use these to build a valid create request. Filter with mode to keep the response small.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Only return models for this mode. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description explains the output content (operations, durations, etc.) and that it's a read operation, but lacks details on pagination or dynamic behavior. Adequate for a simple listing.
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: first states main purpose, second adds details and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 no output schema, description details what the response contains and its purpose (to build a create request). Could mention if auto-generate pipeline is always present, but overall complete for a list tool with one param.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context: 'Filter with `mode` to keep the response small.' This explains the benefit beyond the schema's description.
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 the tool lists video models for manual mode plus the auto-generate pipeline, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_* and list_videos.
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 explains when to use the tool (to get model details for building a create request) and suggests filtering with `mode` to reduce response size. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
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 has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap between tools like check_account and check_configuration, or between the two create video modes. All list tools target different entities, and the remaining tools serve unique roles (estimate credits, get video, wait for video, render preview).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as check_account, create_auto_video, list_models. This makes it easy to predict tool names and understand their purpose.
With 13 tools, the number is well-scoped for a video generation API. It covers setup, account management, creation (two modes), credit estimation, retrieval, listing of various resources, and video waiting. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the core workflow well: configuration check, account info, video creation (both auto and manual), credit estimation, retrieval, and listing. However, there are no tools for updating or deleting videos, nor for managing resources beyond listing (e.g., creating avatars or brand kits). These are minor gaps.
