text_to_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the return values but omits crucial aspects like whether the operation is asynchronous, destructive, or requires authentication. The 'wait' parameter hints at polling but is not explained.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and return value, with no extraneous information.

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 (6 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not mention important details like model variants, aspect ratio options, or the asynchronous nature of task creation, which are essential for correct usage.

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 33% (2 of 6 parameters). The description does not explain any parameter beyond the general 'text to image' context, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Users are left uninformed about aspect_ratio, output_count, 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 explicitly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('Imagen 4 task'), and the output ('task id, status, and output URLs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_pricing, get_task, remix_image) by clearly indicating 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 implies usage for text-to-image generation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remix_image or get_task. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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