text_to_image

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool creates a task and returns output. It does not mention asynchronous behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, costs, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it omits crucial details. It could be slightly longer to include parameter hints or usage context without losing conciseness.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the task lifecycle, how 'wait' and 'poll_interval_ms' interact, or the meaning of output URLs, making it inadequate for robust 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 coverage is only 22%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations beyond the schema's minimal descriptions for 'wait' and 'model'. Parameters like 'prompt', 'seed', 'aspect_ratio' remain undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 tool creates an Imagen 4 task for text-to-image generation and returns task id, status, and output URLs. The verb 'Create' and resource 'Imagen 4 task' are specific, and the parenthetical '(text to image)' distinguishes it from sibling tool 'remix_image'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remix_image' or 'get_task'. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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