text_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (task id, status, output URLs) but fails to mention asynchronous behavior, polling, or blocking semantics, despite parameters like wait, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms that indicate such behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the asynchronous task model, key parameters, or how this tool interacts with get_task, leaving the context incomplete for an agent.

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 22% (2 of 9 properties have descriptions), so the description must compensate. However, the description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the agent without guidance on key fields like prompt, model, or wait. This is a serious deficiency.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'Hailuo task on RunAPI', explicitly noting 'text to video'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like image_to_video and get_task by stating the action and the return type.

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 implies usage for text-to-video generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as image_to_video, or when to follow up with get_task to retrieve results. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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