Getting started guidance

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful context: it is equivalent to the guidance://getting-started resource and exists as a fallback for clients that cannot read resources directly. That explains why the tool exists and why invoking it has no side effects.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the content list comes first and the resource-equivalence rationale second. The first sentence is a long enumeration but every item carries information, so it stays within acceptable length.

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 parameterless, read-only guidance tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the resource-fallback rationale. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the description correctly says nothing about inputs. Baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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?

Enumerates concrete content (authentication, get_me verification, workflow example prompts, workflows vs media tools, ID conventions) with a clear verb+resource framing, so an agent knows exactly what payload it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_workflows_guidance and get_tools_vs_workflows_guidance, which cover adjacent topics.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: connecting, onboarding, 'what can VideoGen do', setting up the API or MCP. That is strong when-to-use coverage. What is missing is when-not-to-use and routing against the sibling guidance tools that cover a subset of this material.

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