Generate text with OpenAI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the API used ('OpenAI GPT model via the Responses API') which hints at behavior but does not disclose details like rate limits, costs, or that the tool invokes an external service. It does not state what happens with token limits or error handling. Given the lack of annotations, this is a minimal but adequate level of behavioral context.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately concise and focused.

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?

This is a medium-complexity tool with 4 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description covers the primary action and API, but lacks details about return structure (text response) and any constraints like model availability or fallbacks. However, given schema completeness and simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable—adequate but not rich.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states. It doesn't explain the implications of max_output_tokens or instructions, but schema descriptions are sufficient. No contradictions.

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 verb (generate) and the resource (text response using an OpenAI GPT model via the Responses API). It distinguishes from sibling generate_image by specifying 'text response' and 'GPT model', though it does not explicitly contrast with that tool. The title and description are aligned and specific.

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 implies the tool is for generating text from a prompt but does not explicitly specify when to use it vs. alternatives. With only one sibling (generate_image), context strongly suggests text generation, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given. The description could mention that this is for textual completions as opposed to image generation.

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