Generate image (WikiVibe)

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: generation is sequential, and there is a hard cap of 4 images per call — both relevant for latency and cost planning. It does not say what is produced (files vs. inline data) or how output_path interacts with multi-image calls, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and then the parameter triage. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the key selection logic and the per-call cap. It leaves the return artifact unexplained (where images land, and how `output_path` behaves when several images are requested), which is the one gap an agent might hit.

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 86%, so the schema already documents almost every parameter including the `n`-ignored-when-`prompts` rule. The description restates the prompt/prompts/n triage in more readable form but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate images from text") and names the backend (WikiVibe), which is enough for an agent to place it against edit_image and list_image_models. It does not explicitly contrast itself with either sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mode-selection guidance: `prompt` for one image, `prompts` for several distinct images, `n` for variations of the same prompt. That is genuine when-to-use-which-parameter routing. It offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over edit_image, and no exclusions, so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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