agnes_image_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the save behavior ('save returned image data when possible') and the supported input modes, but leaves the conditions of 'when possible' unclear and does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes. Some behavioral context exists, but major gaps remain.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and include only necessary details. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and a couple of parameters, but does not provide enough context for advanced options (extra_body, response_format), the save behavior's conditions, or how the tool relates to siblings. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool remains under-described for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the size parameter ('exact pixel dimensions such as '1024x768'') and for image_urls ('image-to-image (via image_urls)'), but does not describe the required prompt parameter, extra_body, return_base64, output_filename, or response_format. This leaves most parameters under-explained.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Generate an image') with a specific resource ('Agnes Image 2.1 Flash') and adds a secondary behavior ('save returned image data when possible'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as agnes_image_generate_v2 or agnes_image_edit.

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 implies usage contexts by stating 'Supports text-to-image and image-to-image (via image_urls)', giving some idea of when to use the tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like agnes_image_generate_v2, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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