text_to_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions returning a task id and output URLs, implying asynchronous behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or the side effects of creating a task. The parameter 'wait' is described in the schema but not in the description.

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 a single sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It efficiently states the core purpose but omits additional context that could be packed into a few more sentences, such as parameter hints.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the task lifecycle, the meaning of output URLs, or how parameters like timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms affect behavior.

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 only 29%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. Key parameters like aspect_ratio, motion_style, and output_resolution are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's minimal descriptions for 'wait' and 'model'.

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 creates a Grok Imagine task for text-to-video generation, and the return values are specified. The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like 'image_to_video' and 'text_to_image'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'image_to_video' or 'extend_video'. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected inputs, or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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