generate_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral transparency. It mentions the model (CodexImage) and style appending, but fails to disclose whether the tool is destructive, what the output format is (URL vs file path), required permissions, or rate limits. The description is incomplete for a generative 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 highly concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core action and additional technical details follow naturally.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core function and technical details but lacks completeness on output behavior, prerequisites, and error conditions. It is adequate for a simple generation tool but leaves gaps compared to best practices.

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 50% (sceneIds has a short description, projectId has none). The description adds meaning by explaining that one image is generated per scene and that project aspect ratio is used, which partially compensates. However, projectId remains undescribed, and sceneIds description in schema already states 'Regenerate only these scenes', so added value is modest.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'one image per scene (or the listed sceneIds)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_thumbnail (single thumbnail) and generate_captions (different output). References to 'CodexImage' and 'project aspect ratio' further clarify the tool's specific function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_thumbnail, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., script must be set) or constraints (e.g., scene count limits). The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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