generate_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output style (comic-book, bold colours, panel divisions, text labels) and implies it creates a visual summary, but does not discuss potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether the image is saved or returned. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with three short sentences front-loading the purpose and usage context. The Args section is straightforward, though it partially repeats earlier information. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has one complex required parameter and no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description does not explain what the output is (e.g., file format, storage location) beyond 'visual summary'. With the output schema available, the description could be more complete by noting the output's nature or additional constraints.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section only states the analysis parameter is a result object from certain tools, without detailing its structure or required fields. The schema allows any additional properties, offering no clarity, leaving the agent to infer the object's format.

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 explicitly states the tool generates a comic-book style infographic image from a video analysis or X digest result, clearly identifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it should be used after analyse_video or analyse_x_feed, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: after analyse_video or analyse_x_feed, and also mentions batch_analyse as an alternative source. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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