Generate Image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default provider (OpenRouter) and that negative_prompt support varies by provider, but says nothing about API key/auth requirements, cost, generation latency, or side effects such as writing a file to disk.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and provider info follows. The trailing provider list is slightly listy but not wasteful.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key operational context: what the call returns (path/URL), auth setup, cost, and failure modes for unsupported options. The provider string in the description partially covers schema territory rather than filling the real gaps.

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 all 8 parameters, including defaults and the provider list. The description largely repeats that structured information (default provider, provider names) without adding format or behavioral detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (generate an image from a text prompt) and identifies the default provider and supported provider set. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_providers, though it does not explicitly mention that sibling.

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, nor when to pick a given provider (e.g. cost, quality, speed tradeoffs). The provider list is presented without any selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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