text_to_image

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions return values (task id, status, output URLs). It omits important details like potential blocking behavior (wait parameter), polling mechanics, asynchronous task lifecycle, and any rate limits or auth requirements. This is insufficient transparency for a task-creation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose and returns. It contains no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise for a tool whose complexity is not conveyed elsewhere.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—8 parameters, asynchronous behavior, no annotations, and no output schema—the description is drastically under-specified. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral disclosures beyond a minimal return statement, rendering it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 25%, and the tool description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. With 3 required parameters (prompt, aspect_ratio, quality) and additional control parameters (wait, timeout_ms, callback_url, poll_interval_ms), the lack of parameter meaning in both schema and description makes it impossible for an agent to correctly set values without external knowledge.

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 a specific action ('Create a GPT Image task') and resource (RunAPI, text to image), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image and get_task. It is not explicitly contrasted with those tools, but the creation/generation purpose is evident.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for generating text-to-image tasks but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to edit_image or get_task, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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