Recent image generations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include the credit balance and are workspace-scoped, which is mild extra context but says nothing about ordering, freshness window, or pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence of content plus one sentence of routing guidance, with the resource and workspace scope front-loaded. No filler, nothing redundant with the title.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, where, what fields come back, and why to prefer it over regenerating. Ordering/recency-window and pagination details are the only real omissions.

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% and both parameters (limit, workspaceId) are documented there, including the default-workspace behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (image generation runs), scopes it (in this workspace), and enumerates the payload (prompts, images, credit balance). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_image by positioning itself as the way to retrieve an earlier result instead of generating a new one.

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?

"Use to find an earlier result rather than paying to regenerate it" gives an explicit when-to-use and the cost rationale that selects this tool over generate_image. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., how far back the history goes, or what to do if the run is not found).

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