generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals important non-obvious traits: images are saved to disk, generation uses the closest native aspect ratio and crops to the requested size, and images cost no credits. This adds meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'generate image' statement.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: action/destination, size behavior, and cost. No filler or repetition.

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 is concise but covers the most important behavior. Missing details include what the tool returns, file naming conventions, and overwrite behavior. However, the schema explains parameters like out_dir and basename, and the absence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Still, for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, a bit more context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a size example and explains cropping behavior, but this is largely redundant with the schema's per-parameter descriptions. It does not add significant meaning beyond what schema properties already provide.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate one or more images with Google Flow and save them to disk.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like flow_status and download_image by focusing on creation with a side effect of saving to disk.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to generate images) but does not explicitly provide usage guidance or exclusions, nor does it mention alternatives like download_image. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but it lacks explicit context for choosing between tools.

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