imagegen-status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly notes the check spends no generation credit, discloses that it inspects spend by tier, and reveals side-effect-relevant facts like the output directory needing to be writable and outside a git repo. It doesn't clarify whether the check merely verifies or actually creates/repairs directories, which is the one meaningful ambiguity for a tool with no readOnlyHint.

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 purpose is front-loaded ("Setup doctor and health check") followed by a tight enumeration of checks, ending with the call-first directive in the highest-salience position. The middle sentence is dense with comma-separated checks but every item carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and what it will learn. The only gap is a lack of indication of what the response looks like (pass/fail report vs. structured diagnostics), which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter guidance.

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 enumerates concretely what the tool inspects: API key validity, reachable image models, output directory writability and git-repo placement, cutout Python dependencies, and estimated spend. This makes it unmistakably a diagnostic/health-check tool rather than a generation tool. It never names the siblings (generate-image, edit-image, cutout-image) explicitly, so it falls 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?

"Call this first on a cold start" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs before invoking generation siblings. There is no stated when-not-to-use case (e.g., calling it repeatedly mid-session), but the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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