get_pro_flash_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'Free' explicitly discloses cost behavior. It also flags the beta nature of the custom-dimension rules, which is useful trait disclosure beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and the pragmatic usage note ('Check this before...') is included without bloating the description.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool, this is complete: it states what is listed, that it is free, which workflows it supports, and when an agent should consult it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently defines the return scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter ambiguity is not a concern. The description instead clarifies what the output covers, which is the only meaningful semantic information needed for this capability-list tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource: the Pro Flash engine's size presets, beta custom-dimension rules, and supported controls. It also differentiates itself from mutation siblings by explicitly naming create/edit/inpaint_image_pro_flash, making the tool's role clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check this before calling create/edit/inpaint_image_pro_flash with a non-standard size.' It also states the tool is free, which helps agents decide whether to call it for cost-sensitive workflows. No exclusions are needed for a zero-parameter capability lookup.

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