aaddyy_image_prompt_creator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual output mode (plain text or structured JSON) and the cost (~10 credits), which are useful behavioral signals. But it omits what happens with unsupported image types, rate limits, or whether the analysis itself has restrictions. Mixed coverage.

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 plus a parenthetical cost note, front-loaded with the action and output modes. Very efficient, though the parenthetical credit note sits awkwardly at the end.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. For a tool with two parameters and a cost, the description should at least enumerate outputFormat values and constrain imageUrl. As written, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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% for both imageUrl and outputFormat. The description mentions the output-format option in prose ('Supports plain text or structured JSON output') but gives no allowed values, syntax, or default for outputFormat, and says nothing at all about imageUrl format. The schema does the heavy lifting only in the sense that it lists the names; the description compensates poorly.

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+resource: 'Analyze any image and generate a detailed AI image generation prompt to recreate it.' This is unmistakable and distinct from siblings like aaddyy_image_generator (which generates an image) or aaddyy_prompt_maker (general prompts).

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 usage ('analyze an image to recreate it') but never states when to use it versus aaddyy_image_generator or aaddyy_prompt_maker, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but noticeably thin for a use-case-dependent tool.

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