list_video_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior in detail: what the tool returns (full schema, modes, aspect ratios, etc.) and its authoritative nature. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but 'List' implies a read-only operation. The description adds useful context about the tool's role as the source of truth for model capabilities.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the primary action and returns in detail, then provides usage context, then explains the parameter. Every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is compact despite the rich detail.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool provides (full details for each model), when to use it (for model selection and parameter validation), and how to filter. No critical information is missing, and it aligns with the tool's simple interface.

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 schema already covers the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples ('cinematic', 'fast', 'audio') and clarifies that the filter matches name, display name, and strengths, which slightly exceeds the schema's description. It provides practical guidance on how to use the filter.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available video-generation models'), and enumerates the detailed information returned (schema, modes, aspect ratios, durations, resolutions, media, native audio, strengths, price). It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_image_models and list_audio_models by focusing on video models.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'call it when choosing a model for an open-ended request, or to check what a model accepts before setting aspect_ratio / duration / resolution / media.' It also positions it as the 'authoritative source' for exact ranges. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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