text_to_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (task id, status, output URLs) and the creating action, but does not explain the asynchronous nature, wait/polling behavior, callback mechanism, or safety checker. Behavior beyond the obvious create action is under-specified.

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 exactly two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the return info added second. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It lacks guidance on configuration (aspect ratio, output format), async behavior, and error cases. The return statement is helpful but insufficient for a complex task creation tool.

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 20% (2 of 10 params have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level explanations – it only mentions the overall 'text to image' function. It does not clarify prompt, seed, aspect_ratio, output_format, or other meaningful parameters, which the low schema coverage does not compensate for.

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 begins with 'Create a Qwen 2 task on RunAPI (text to image)' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like edit_image and get_task by specifying the text-to-image generation use case and the RunAPI platform.

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 this tool is for generating images from text ('text to image') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like edit_image. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given; usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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