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. It mentions returning a task id, status, and output URLs but does not explain that tasks may be asynchronous, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. Some transparency is present but insufficient for a mutation 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 very concise with two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it omits important details, which prevents a higher score. The brevity is a strength but not at the expense of completeness.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It only covers the high-level purpose and return values, missing parameter details, usage context, and behavioral notes needed for correct 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 29%, yet the description contains no information about any of the 7 parameters (prompt, aspect_ratio, etc.). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents with no guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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 a Qwen 2 task for text-to-image on RunAPI and lists the return values (task id, status, output URLs). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like edit_image and remix_image which perform different operations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_image, remix_image). It lacks context about prerequisites, when to avoid, or how to choose between sibling tools.

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