get_generation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It excellently does so by explaining terminal vs. non-terminal states, the structure of image_urls and processing_result.slots, and the critical edge case that a server-side failure returns a successful tool call with processing_state: 'failed'. It also documents an optional hosted API key meta parameter.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Fetch, Args, Returns, NOTE, Hosted) and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then provides necessary behavioral caveats without padding.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nesting), and while an output schema exists, the description still enriches understanding of return semantics and failure modes. It covers parameter origin, expected result shape, critical state-checking guidance, and auth metadata—everything an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that uuid is 'The UUID returned by generate', giving the agent the provenance and expected value of the only parameter. It also mentions the optional _meta key for hosted sessions, adding useful context beyond the bare schema type.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a generation by UUID' and even includes the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate' (which creates) and 'wait_for_generation' (which waits), and the UUID-based scope makes its role 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 provides clear context by explaining that the uuid comes from the 'generate' call, which tells the agent when to use this tool. It also advises checking processing_state rather than assuming success. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool vs. siblings like wait_for_generation.

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