text_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the tool creates an asynchronous task (via the return of a task id) and supports polling via wait/timeout parameters. However, it does not explicitly state the asynchronous nature, authorization requirements, or potential side effects.

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 concise sentence that covers the core purpose and outputs without unnecessary verbosity. It could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain the asynchronous workflow, output format details, or parameter dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI 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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional parameter information. Parameters like aspect_ratio and output_resolution are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 GPT Image 2 task'), the resource ('on RunAPI'), and the expected outputs ('Returns a task id, status, and output URLs'). It is distinct from sibling tools like edit_image and get_task.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_image or check_pricing. The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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