generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (generate image) and one detail (description in text), but discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, costs, rate limits, asynchrony, or failure modes. For a generative tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient but under-specified. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important context. It is concise, but conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; this is borderline under-specification.

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?

The tool has a nested messages array and a model parameter, but the description does not explain expected output (e.g., image URL), model choices, or any constraints. Without output schema or annotations, the agent has limited context to call it correctly. The description is too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. The note 'описание в тексте сообщения' restates the content property's purpose, which is already defined in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 generates images via GigaChat, which distinguishes it from sibling text-based tools like chat and embed_text. However, it does not explicitly name any siblings or contrast itself, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 image generation but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is left to the agent to infer the tool's purpose from its name and the GigaChat reference.

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