agnes_image_generate

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 mentions the model version and API compatibility, but does not disclose important behavioral aspects such as output format (e.g., returned image URL or base64), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the primary action. Every sentence adds value—introducing the model, noting API compatibility, and listing strengths—with no unnecessary fluff.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any operational constraints. It lacks information about the response format, required API keys, or typical usage context beyond the listed strengths, leaving significant 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%, with each parameter already having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate an image using Agnes Image 2.1 Flash (text-to-image model).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and even lists example use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by listing 'Excels at: creative illustration, concept art, UI mockups, photorealistic renders, Chinese-style art.' However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and there are no sibling tools to contrast with.

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