Single tool 'generate_image' with adequate schema but significant gaps in parameter descriptions and error handling guidance. Description is present (262 chars, within baseline range) but lacks actionable error recovery patterns. Parameter descriptions exist but lack explicit format constraints (e.g., no mention of valid size formats beyond default). No output schema documented. Tool is functional but would not pass production code review, lacks error classification, recovery guidance, and output structure documentation required for reliable agent integration.
Generate an image from a text description. Returns JSON with prompt, model, size, and url. Present the result to the user in a friendly way: show the image as a clickable/inline link, mention what was generated and which model was used. Available models: [varies by configuration]. Default: [image_default]. If the user mentions a model but it is not clear which one they mean, ask them to clarify.
No documented output schema. Tool description mentions 'Returns JSON with prompt, model, size, and url' but this structure is not formalized in machine-readable schema. LLMs cannot reliably extract the url field or plan downstream operations.
Parameter 'size' lacks explicit format constraints. Description only mentions default '1024x1024' but does not enumerate valid formats (e.g., is '512x512' valid? '1024x768'? square only?). LLMs will guess invalid values.
Parameter 'model' description is vague: 'Model name to use for generation' with default listed as 'image_default or empty string'. This is confusing, does an empty string use a default, or is it invalid? Available models are '[varies by configuration]', no enum or discovery path provided.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 57 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling guidance. Description does not indicate what happens if generation fails, whether errors are retryable, or what recovery steps the agent should take. No actionable error messages defined.
Tool description includes vague user-facing instruction ('Present the result to the user in a friendly way') which is presentation logic, not tool semantics. Tool definitions should describe what the tool does, not how the client should render results.