grok_video

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

The description mentions optional polling, which is a key behavioral trait for async tasks. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors like destructive actions (likely write), auth requirements, or rate limits. The polling detail adds some value but is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is too brief for a tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, sacrificing necessary detail for 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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, or parameter formats, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 9 parameters, the description provides no parameter semantics. It does not explain prompt, image_path, model, aspect_ratio, duration, fps, poll, poll_interval_ms, or poll_timeout_ms, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 generates videos from text or images, referencing the specific endpoint /videos/generations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_image (image generation) and grok_chat (text chat) by specifying video output.

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 usage for video generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., image generation), or conditions for polling.

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