segment_map

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 mentions that the tool returns a task id, status, and output URLs, which hints at an asynchronous task pattern, but it does not explain polling, callback behavior, error handling, or whether the operation is blocking. It also says 'Create a task' but does not indicate side effects or whether it modifies resources. This is insufficient for safe agent use.

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 sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and briefly notes return values. Given the limited content, it is concise, though it could be more helpful without being longer. Efficiency alone supports a 4.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It omits critical context such as what 'segment map' means, how the task progresses, what triggers terminal status, whether a callback is required, and how output URLs are delivered. An agent cannot reliably construct a call or interpret results with only this description. The description leaves many gaps that the schema cannot fill.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already provides most parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond repeating the overall purpose. One parameter (source_task_id) includes a compatibility note, which is helpful. Since coverage is above the 80% baseline, a 3 is appropriate—the description does not hinder but adds minimal value.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and a resource ('Grok Imagine task on RunAPI (segment map)'), and mentions return values (task id, status, output URLs). However, the phrase 'segment map' is ambiguous—it could mean image segmentation but is not explained—and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like text_to_image or edit_image. It is not a tautology, but it leaves the core purpose partially unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply describes the action without any context about appropriate scenarios, input requirements, or relationships to sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over other task-creation tools.

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