generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: it saves to local storage by default, returns a file path with '零 base64', supports model name passthrough, and claims both generation and editing capabilities. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or auth dependencies, but the most operationally critical side effects are stated.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action, names the API compatibility and key models, then states the default output behavior. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler, making it efficient 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?

For a 12-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the main decision-relevant topics: purpose, default return mode, and local saving. The remaining gaps (relationships such as size vs aspect_ratio, image vs images) are largely handled by the very detailed schema, so the calling context is nearly complete, but not fully self-contained.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'model name passthrough', which the 'model' property already explains. There is no additional param-level meaning added beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action, '生成/编辑图片' (generate/edit images), and anchors it to the OpenAI-compatible /images/generations endpoint with examples of model names. It is a specific verb+resource that is unmistakably distinct from its sibling video and capability-inspection tools.

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 text implies the usage window (image generation/editing) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as generate_video, nor does it provide exclusions, prerequisites, or 'when not to use' guidance. A clear enough scope is inferable from purpose and sibling names, but no direct routing is given.

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