codex_native_image

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that code-drawn substitutes are rejected and that danger-full-access requires explicit user confirmation. However, it does not clarify output format (e.g., file path vs. URL), synchronicity, or permissions for other sandbox levels. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, use cases, exclusions, and behavioral constraint. No redundancy or fluff.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover more behavioral context. It fails to mention the return format (file path/URL), whether the tool is synchronous or asynchronous, and the implications of other sandbox settings. It is not fully complete for such a complex tool.

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 67%, meaning the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only one significant detail: that dangerousConfirmed must be set to true for danger-full-access. It does not elaborate on other parameters like prompt, cwd, or outputDir beyond the schema. Thus, it adds marginal value, warranting a baseline 3.

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 real bitmap images, lists explicit use cases (e.g., illustrations, textures) and non-use cases (flowcharts, diagrams), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other image generation tool). The verb 'Generate' and resource 'bitmap image' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use (bitmap images) and when-not-to-use (flowcharts, etc.) guidelines, offers alternatives (code or SVG), and highlights the danger-full-access confirmation requirement. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over others.

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