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 core behavior (generating a new image) and explicitly excludes modification, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or what happens to previous images. For a simple generation tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise, clear, and avoids 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 covers the tool's purpose and usage clearly, but with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short on explaining what the tool returns or any secondary effects. For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions of what 'prompt' and 'aspectRatio' mean. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Generate a NEW image from text prompt.' It specifies the verb (generate), resource (image), and source (text prompt). The emphasis on 'NEW' and 'not when modifying an existing one' distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool ('ONLY when creating a completely new image') and when not to use it ('not when modifying an existing one'). This gives clear usage boundaries, even though it doesn't name the alternative tool directly.

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