asset_generate_logo

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

Beyond the sole annotation (openWorldHint=true), the description discloses key behavioral traits: mode-specific key requirements, auto-selection logic, and that the return is a discriminated union (AssetBundle/InlineSvgPlan/ExternalPromptPlan). This adds substantial context for agent decision-making.

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 three sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, mode breakdown, and return type. Information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

While the description covers modes and returns, it omits explanation of most input parameters (e.g., what 'brief' expects, how 'brand_bundle' affects output). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand invocation fully.

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 description explains only the 'mode' parameter (three values and auto-select), which is the only parameter with schema coverage (17%). Other critical parameters like 'brief', 'brand_bundle', and 'text_content' are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their roles.

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 'Generate a logo' and elaborates on three distinct modes (inline_svg, external_prompt_only, api) with specific behaviors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_generate_hero or asset_generate_illustration, which have different asset targets.

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 explains when to use each mode and that omitting the mode auto-selects. However, it does not explicitly advise against using this tool in scenarios better suited for siblings (e.g., generating a hero image), nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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