Generate image

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter defaults and response_format, but doesn't disclose return structure, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a generation tool, this is moderate transparency but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a well-organized Args list. Each parameter is clearly documented without unnecessary verbosity. Every line adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions response_format but doesn't explicitly state the return structure (e.g., object containing URL or base64 data). However, for a generation tool with all parameters documented, it is nearly complete. Missing only a formal note on the return value.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: prompt, size, seed, model, and response_format. It adds meaning beyond the schema with details like seed range, size format, and model default.

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 one image from a text prompt.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is defined (single image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image, which would modify an existing 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 gives clear context: this tool is for generating an image from a text prompt. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward. It could mention using edit_image for editing, but the core usage is implied strongly enough to warrant a 4.

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