step_generate_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the high-level operation and prompt preparation, but it does not mention authentication/setup requirements (notable given the step_configure_api_key sibling), rate limits, side effects, or what the caller receives back. For a tool with no output schema, omitting the return behavior is a meaningful gap.

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 first sentence leads with the action and target use cases; the second provides the single most important precondition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 plus schema cover the primary purpose, all parameters, and the key prompt-construction requirement. However, the tool has no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or whether an API key/setup must be configured first. Those are relevant gaps for correct invocation in this tool family.

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%, and the schema parameter descriptions are unusually detailed, including guidance like 'Do not pass vague references like what we discussed; include the actual content.' The main tool description reinforces prompt semantics by instructing the agent to summarize the conversation into a complete prompt, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description states a specific action (generate an image) with a specific resource (Step Plan) and enumerates concrete artifact types: poster, infographic, cover image, social media graphic. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling text-to-speech and setup tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to create an image, poster, visual report, infographic...' and gives a clear precondition: summarize the conversation into a complete image prompt before calling. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative image-generation tool, but none of the siblings compete for the same task, so the guidance is clear without exclusions.

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