i-pic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does add useful behavioral details: default model, multi-image support, provider fallback via GEN_INFOGRAPH_ADAPTER, and instance selection semantics. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or any side effects, so coverage is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clear parameter list. The only minor issue is the external reference '见 3.7' and the absence of the actual size constant list, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 provides enough defaults to invoke the tool correctly, and an output schema apparently exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, it lacks usage boundaries against sibling tools, does not enumerate the 11 size constants, and references an external section that the agent may not have access to.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all five parameters: prompt is required, size has a default and a family of 2K constants, n controls count, provider selects backend with a fallback, and instance names a specific instance. This adds real meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates infographic images ('信息图文生图') and identifies the GEN_INFOGRAPH pipeline with a default model, so the function's purpose is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as r-pic, g-pic, or p-pic, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of sibling tools or exclusions. The description only lists capabilities and defaults, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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