generate_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds 'OpenAI 兼容协议' and default values for parameters, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether the operation is synchronous, or any side effects beyond generation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. Every sentence provides actionable information without fluff or repetition.

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?

All parameters are documented with defaults and enums, but the description omits the output format (e.g., image URL, base64) and lacks usage guidance relative to the sibling tool. For a generation tool with no output schema or annotations, this is a notable gap but still usable for parameter selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly marking 'prompt' as required, listing all enum values for aspectRatio and imageSize, and providing default values for aspectRatio, imageSize, and model, which are not present in the schema descriptions.

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 '生成 AI 图片' (generate AI images) with the OpenAI-compatible protocol, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_image' by explicitly focusing on generation rather than editing.

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?

Usage is implied from the tool name and description (use for generating images vs editing), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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