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. It discloses the async nature, polling mechanism, save location, and typical generation time, which is sufficient for a generation tool.

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 fairly concise and well-structured, starting with the core function, then detailing saving directory, then typical duration, and ending with user interaction. The user question could be omitted for brevity, but it adds clarity for usage.

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?

While the description covers the save path, naming, and async behavior, it does not mention the return value (likely a task ID) or error handling. Given no output schema, this is a gap that reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema descriptions: it explains how to obtain projectDir, naming conventions, auto-suffix for multiple images, and subdirectory customization. This meets the high bar.

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 it submits an async image generation task and specifies where images are saved. It is distinct from siblings like check_task and generate_video, as it focuses on generating images.

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 explains that the task is async and returns immediately, and advises asking the user about progress tracking. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but provides good context for decision-making.

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