generate_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the model (Gemini 3 Pro), support for resolutions and aspect ratios, and that higher resolutions take longer. However, it lacks details on output format, potential failures, or any destructive effects.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states primary function and model, second explains use case and highlights key features.

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?

For a straightforward image generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, supported options, and a usage hint. It could mention cost, rate limits, or maximum resolution, but is sufficient for basic operations.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context ('be descriptive and specific for best results' for prompt, 'Higher resolutions take longer' for resolution), which is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Generate a NEW image from text prompt' and 'Use this for creating completely new images from scratch,' which clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image or continue_editing.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool ('creating completely new images from scratch'), but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternatives.

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