generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic generation action. It does not mention output format, return behavior, saving semantics, costs, rate limits, or any side effects. The timing/quality trade-off is present in the schema, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 generation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or saves (e.g., path, URL, base64). The presence of a save_path parameter implies saving, but the description does not confirm this or mention the return value. Combined with sibling ambiguity, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly and handle the result.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond schema, but it does not mislead either. The model name ('CogView-4') is context not directly tied to parameters, but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies a text-to-image generation tool using the CogView-4 model, with a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('image from text prompt'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool pollinations_generate_image, which also generates images, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 the alternative image generation tool or other siblings. It does not mention preferred use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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