imageGenVideo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the important async nature of the tool by instructing the caller to return the returned JSON and only the traceId, and to avoid querying the task status. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though failure modes and timing are not discussed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by return-format guidance. There is minor redundancy between 'return the API JSON' and 'only return the traceId', but overall every sentence serves a 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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description tells the caller exactly what to do with the response and that task polling is unnecessary. This is adequate for a simple async image-to-video tool, though it could mention expected response shape or failure behavior for full completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both imageUrl and prompt. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the image URL concept, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: take a single image URL and generate an animatable video via an image-to-video model. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like imgs2video by emphasizing a single image link, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives explicit context that the tool should be used for a single image and adds a clear exclusion: do not proactively call the task query interface, only return the traceId from the API response. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like video2video or imgs2video, so it is not a full 5.

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