text_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It omits details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or asynchronous behavior (though the wait parameter hints at polling).

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the action and key return values.

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?

With 7 parameters, 3 enums, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter roles, defaults, or how to interpret the response, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 29% (wait and model have descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning to the remaining 5 parameters, relying entirely on the sparse schema for prompts, aspect_ratio, output_resolution, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms.

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 the action (create a task), the model (Flux 2), the domain (text to image), and the return values (task id, status, output URLs). It distinguishes from siblings as it is the only tool for text-to-image generation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_pricing, get_task, or remix_image. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection.

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