agnes_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 that images are saved locally and a preview is returned inline (only for small files). However, it omits details such as whether the tool is blocking, if it overwrites existing files, any cost or rate limits, and the exact return format beyond a preview.

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?

Three sentences with no extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and is structured logically: mode explanation, then outcome.

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?

Covers the core functionality and modes. However, it lacks details on output file naming, handling of duplicate file names, limitations on prompt length or image_urls count, and the structure of the inline preview response. Given no output schema, more completeness on return values would be helpful.

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 value by explaining the mode switch tied to image_urls and the size limitation for inline_preview. Other parameters (size, ratio, prompt) are not elaborated beyond the schema, so no significant added meaning.

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 it generates images using a specific model (Agnes Image 2.1 Flash). It distinguishes between text-to-image and image-to-image modes, and given sibling tools are for video, the tool's purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: text-to-image by default, image-to-image when image_urls are provided. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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