image_outpainting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'extend image beyond borders', implying a mutation, but does not state whether this is destructive, requires authentication, or rate limits. Lacks transparency for a generative 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 very short (5 words). While concise, it lacks structure—no sentences or additional context. It is minimally adequate but could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and siblings that perform related tasks, the description is incomplete. It does not explain key details like the need for a mask and prompt, or how output differs from alternatives. Schema descriptions help, but tool-level context is missing.

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%, so all 6 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no improvement from description.

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 'Outpaint / extend image beyond borders' clearly indicates the tool's function: extending an image outward. It distinguishes from inpainting (filling inside), but among siblings like 'generative_fill', the distinction is implicit. Still, it's specific and understandable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'magic_inpaint', 'generative_fill'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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