Gerar imagem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that images are saved to disk and that file paths are returned. This provides clear side-effect and output behavior. It could mention resource consumption or rate limits, but the given transparency is strong.

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 somewhat long but efficiently front-loads the core purpose. The important usage guideline is highlighted with 'IMPORTANTE'. Every sentence contributes value. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains well-structured and reader-friendly.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (file paths) and side effects (saving to disk). It covers required behavior and important constraints (aspect ratio). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or maximum image count (4 per schema), but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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% (baseline 3). The description significantly enriches parameters: for 'size' it details market aspect ratios and advanced provider-specific syntax; for 'model' it hints at Google models and suggests list_image_models; for 'quality' it clarifies which models ignore it. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 tool generates images from a text prompt, saves them to disk, and returns file paths. It distinguishes from edit_image via the condition 'Se o usuário quer partir de uma imagem existente'. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use (generate from text) and when not (edit/vary/reference, use edit_image). It also includes an important guideline to ask for aspect ratio if not provided, listing market standards. This gives clear context for selection and invocation.

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