Muse 文字生圖

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers high-value behavior: output is written to local disk and only an absolute path is returned (not image bytes), the size field is an aspect ratio rather than pixel dimensions, and there is a per-image cost of US$0.01. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot get from the schema; it doesn't cover failure modes or auth, hence not a 5.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct and load-bearing information (purpose, return-value behavior, size semantics, cost), with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must (and does) explain the non-obvious return contract — a file path instead of image content — plus cost. Given full parameter coverage elsewhere, the only missing context is edge-case/error behavior and whether existing files are overwritten.

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 every parameter including n, size, model, extra_params, output_format and reasoning_strength is already documented. The description's note that size is an aspect ratio duplicates the schema's own wording, so it adds essentially nothing beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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 and resource — generating images from text via the Meta Muse model — which an agent can distinguish from edit_image/iterate_image by the 'from text description' framing. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting the siblings, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

Implies its use case (text-to-image) and even routes the agent downstream ('to view the image, use the file reading tool on that path'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs edit_image/iterate_image guidance or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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