agnes_image_generate_v2

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses input capabilities (text/image-to-image) and the model's optimization focus, but it gives no information about output behavior, side effects, costs, or limitations, leaving important behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes no filler. It packs relevant details about input modes and size formats, though slightly dense in the second sentence.

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 an 8-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality and key parameters, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, several parameters (e.g., output handling) are not explained, and there is no mention of prerequisites or operational context, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains 'size' (tier values and legacy sizes) and 'ratio' (allowed ratios), and clarifies the role of 'image_urls' for image-to-image. Other parameters like 'extra_body', 'return_base64', 'output_filename', and 'response_format' remain undocumented, so the description only partially compensates.

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 an image with a specific model version ('Agnes Image 2.1 Flash') and a distinct focus on high-information-density visuals. It distinguishes from image editing and video tools by name/verb, but it does not explicitly compare against the sibling 'agnes_image_generate'.

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?

It provides clear context on supported input modes: text-to-image and image-to-image via image_urls, plus acceptable size/ratio formats. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or directions on when to prefer this over sibling tools like agnes_image_generate.

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