agnes_video_generate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool blocks until completion, returns the final video URL, and may download the file locally. It does not mention failure handling or polling details, but the core behavioral contract is communicated.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the next two add value about the combined behavior and return/download functionality. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the main workflow and the return/download behavior, and an output schema exists so return details are not needed. However, with 13 parameters and zero schema documentation, the description leaves significant gaps about how to configure the video task, including mode, image, resolution, aspect ratio, and negative prompt.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and there are no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only hints at one parameter-related behavior ('optionally downloads the video file') and mentions nothing about the other 12 parameters. It does not meaningfully compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('Submit an Agnes video task and wait for completion') and identifies the resource ('Agnes video task'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Combines submit + wait into a single call', making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by stating it combines submit and wait, implying it is the all-in-one alternative to using agnes_video_submit followed by agnes_video_wait. However, it does not explicitly state when one would prefer the separate tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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