teneo_generate_cover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait the schema cannot express: the call charges the account cover-generation credits. However, it says nothing about whether generation is synchronous, how long it takes, whether the provider choice changes cost or quality, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost caveat; nothing is padded. The phrasing 'only' is slightly ambiguous but costs almost no length.

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 six-parameter generative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is far too thin. The billing note is the one genuinely helpful addition; an agent still lacks any basis for choosing a provider or supplying mood/style/theme values.

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% across six parameters (mood, style, theme, title, author, provider), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The enum on 'provider' is completely unexplained, and the required 'title' is not distinguished from the optional descriptive fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a book cover'), which is unambiguous on its own. The trailing 'only' weakly signals it does not generate anything beyond the cover, hinting at a boundary with the sibling teneo_generate_book, but the sibling is never named and the contrast is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over teneo_generate_book or teneo_generate_outline, nor any prerequisites or ordering advice. The word 'only' gestures at scope but does not tell the agent what condition should route it here.

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