create_banner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation, network requests), safety, or authentication needs. The description is purely functional and lacks transparency about what happens beyond banner generation, such as whether the output is saved or returned.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the output type (banner) and key features (backsplash, character, auto-scale). It does not explain output format or behavior, but the schema compensates. A minor gap in not describing return value or side effects prevents a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides; the mention of 'procedural mesh gradient backsplash' and 'layered extracted character' relates to the output, not parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 promotional banner with specific visual features (procedural mesh gradient backsplash, layered extracted character) and automatic scaling to multiple platforms. It uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'banner', and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_meme by its unique output.

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 creating promotional banners for platforms like Scatter.art, OpenSea, or Twitter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_meme for memes) or provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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