list_image_options

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 that the tool performs a read-only enumeration of available sizes and aspect ratios, implicitly indicating no side effects. It does not specify return format or output structure, but for a parameter-less listing tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: what it lists and in what context. It does not explain how results feed into generate_image, but that is not required for this tool's scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter semantics.

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 'List' and a specific resource 'available sizes and aspect ratios' plus the domain 'for image generation'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling generate_image, which actually creates images rather than enumerating options.

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 phrase 'for image generation' provides clear context that this is a pre-generation lookup, and the distinction from generate_image is strongly implied. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling or give any exclusion conditions, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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