generate_shot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives a minimal hint about backend selection (local default vs. Azure Sora) but does not describe what the tool does to the input, whether it returns a result immediately or asynchronously, side effects, or required authentication for Azure. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 short, but it is not effectively concise because it is vague and does not convey the tool's core function. It front-loads the backend choice but omits essential information, making it more of an under-specification than a concise statement.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, the input parameters, the workflow, or the expected outcome. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (size, prompt, source, backend, seconds) or their meanings. The tool's behavior with these parameters is entirely undocumented, making it impossible for an agent to know how to set them correctly.

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 does not clearly state that this tool generates a video shot. It mentions 'Prepare an existing local rush' and 'call Azure Sora', but the core action of generating a shot is only implied by the tool name. There is no specific verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like generate_status or generate_fetch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'default' and 'explicitly call Azure Sora' hints at backend choice, but it does not explain when to pick local vs. Azure Sora, nor does it differentiate from other generation-related tools.

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