generate_image_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool generates a script from images, but says nothing about the fact that it evidently calls Tencent Cloud services (given secretId/secretKey/region parameters), what the output looks like, credential precedence, potential costs, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with cloud integration.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — it states the purpose immediately. It is efficient and well-structured, though slightly under-specified for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

This is a complex tool: 9 parameters including cloud credentials and region, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description is inadequate context. It does not explain the image-to-script workflow, the need for Tencent Cloud credentials, what the generated script contains, or how it relates to the sibling generate_video_script. An agent cannot fully anticipate side effects or requirements from this definition alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters is already documented with clear Chinese descriptions including defaults and enums. The description adds only the 'batch' qualifier that maps to imagePaths being an array, which is marginal. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '基于批量图片内容生成专业拍摄脚本' names a specific verb (generate), a clear resource (professional shooting script), and a scope (batch image content). The 'batch image' qualifier implicitly sets it apart from the sibling generate_video_script, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 usage context is implied: you feed it batch images and get a shooting script, which reasonably suggests it is for image-driven script generation rather than video-driven (generate_video_script) or pure analysis (analyze_image_batch). However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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