Generate Image

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

Annotations already indicate this is a generative, open-world tool. The description adds context about model-specific behavior (V4 style restriction) and mentions style/size controls, but lacks details on rate limits or output handling.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence captures the main purpose and capabilities, the second adds a critical caveat. No unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and a key limitation. However, it omits details about the output format (e.g., image URL or base64) and potential variability due to openWorldHint.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the interaction between model and style for V4, but does not significantly expand on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 it generates images from text prompts using Recraft AI, listing supported styles and controls. It distinguishes from sibling tools like image_to_image by focusing on text-to-image generation.

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 conditional guidance: V4 models do not support style parameters. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus siblings like image_to_image or generate_background.

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