generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the asynchronous response behavior (completed vs processing), the immediate availability of image_url upon completion, and the billing behavior: credits are deducted upfront and automatically refunded on failure. This is meaningful operational detail beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Generate gambar') and then packs high-value behavioral guidance about response statuses, polling, and credit handling. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important runtime behaviors: asynchronous statuses, polling via get_generation_status, and credit/refund policy. It does not specify the exact response fields needed for polling (e.g., generation ID), but the explicit reference to get_generation_status gives the agent enough direction to proceed.

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 schema already documents the three parameters and describes the parameters object with examples and accepted file input formats. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Generate gambar' (generate image). This directly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_video and generate_audio by the image-specific scope, while the name reinforces the intent.

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 gives concrete follow-up guidance: if the response status is 'processing', the agent should poll with get_generation_status. This tells the agent when to use a sibling tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., do not use for video/audio), but the image-specific name and clear async instruction provide sufficient context.

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