generate-image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: returns absolute PNG paths, draft speed is ~2 s/image, finals finish at preset output resolution, and an upscale pipeline is included. It does not cover failure/error behavior, but provides solid practical context.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the operationally important output and performance details. Every clause earns its place.

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 description is largely complete for a complex 8-parameter tool: no output schema exists, so it explains return format (absolute PNG paths), and it adds performance and resolution context. Remaining gaps like refine-mode behavior and when to use sibling tools are minor because the schema already details the parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 rather than a higher score.

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's function: generating Foundry table art via a local ComfyUI instance. It is specific about the resource and output type, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like upscale-image, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context by contrasting draft speed and final render quality, and by noting that finals include an upscale pipeline. However, it does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus upscale-image or artificer-status, leaving some routing to inference.

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