run_text_to_image

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool polls until completion, returns immediately on success or failure/timeout, and specifies a default timeout of 10 minutes. It does not cover concurrency or rate limits, but the behavioral traits of polling and return conditions are well explained.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds behavioral details efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior (submit, poll, return). It does not detail every parameter, but the schema covers them. The description is complete for a wrapper tool with good structured documentation.

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 no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, only referencing the default timeout. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: 'Submit a text-to-image task and poll until completion.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Combines text_to_image + query_task polling into one call.' This provides a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from related 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 description implies usage: use when you want a combined submit-and-poll call. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the mention of combining two sibling tools gives context for when this is appropriate over individual calls.

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