generate_caption

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'Costs 1 AI credit,' which is useful economic context, and hints that the operation may create or modify content. However, it omits expected output format, permissions, rate limits, and side effects beyond the cost.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose before optional details, with no 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?

For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, a 31-word description leaves gaps including char_limit, workspace_id, and return value expectations. But it does establish purpose, optional inputs, and cost, so it's minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'current draft text' and 'target platforms for tone-aware output,' mapping to two parameters, but char_limit and workspace_id are never described; the description does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses 'Generate or improve a social media caption with AI,' specifying both action and resource. It mentions optional draft and platforms, which adds scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'rewrite_for_platforms,' which appears to handle similar caption rewriting, so it isn't a 5.

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?

It gives context for optional current_caption and platforms for tone-aware output, which guides parameter usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendation, such as referencing rewrite_for_platforms.

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