Generate Video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating a video animation but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a long-running process, if it requires authentication, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's core function. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description. However, for a video generation tool with no behavioral context, the description should do more to explain process characteristics and usage scenarios to be fully complete.

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 description implies parameters like 'start and end frame images' but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'prompt' relates to the frames) or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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: 'Generate a video animation from start and end frame images.' This specifies the action (generate), resource (video animation), and key inputs (frame images). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-image' or 'create-variant' beyond mentioning 'video animation,' leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate-image' and 'create-variant' available, there's no indication of scenarios where this tool is preferred, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately.

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