generate_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 prompt_extend is enabled by default and that the model auto-recommends resolution, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention costs, permissions, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. 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 the rich schema with 9 parameters and output schema, the description provides sufficient overview, covering the primary function and key defaults. It doesn't cover all parameters but the schema does. Sibling differentiation could enhance completeness but isn't essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about prompt language support ('支持中英文提示词') and the auto-recommendation behavior relating to size, but most parameter details are already in the schema.

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 from text prompts ('文生图（T2I）— 根据文本提示词直接生成图像'), using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool edit_image, which handles 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for generating new images but doesn't exclude editing tasks or point to edit_image. Context about language support and auto-resolution is provided, but no comparative guidance.

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