Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, or the nature of the returned 'pricing entry point'. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent to infer safety and output behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks clarity on what the 'pricing entry point' actually returns (e.g., a URL, an object, a price list). With no output schema, the description should provide this context but does not.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters; the lack of parameters is self-evident from the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('the canonical pricing entry point'), and specifies the product ('Nano Banana Pro AI'). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like list_styles and get_official_links.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is evidently meant for retrieving pricing information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_official_linksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds caveats like 'canonical' and 'when available', which hint at authority and conditional availability of docs. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., array, JSON), potential rate limits, or whether authentication is required. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes: 'canonical' explains authority, 'website, support, docs when available' specifies scope without verbosity. There is no fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what it returns (a list of official links) and the object (Nano Banana Pro AI). The lack of an explicit return format is a minor gap, but the term 'list' implies a collection. The description does not mention when to prefer this over siblings, but that's covered under usage guidelines. Overall, it meets the needs of a straightforward tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously true). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information (unnecessary), but it correctly implies the tool needs no inputs. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the canonical list of official links for Nano Banana Pro AI'. It specifies the verb ('Return'), the resource ('official links'), and even qualifies what those links include ('website, support, docs when available'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_styles and get_pricing, which have entirely different purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool (when you need official links) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools like list_styles or get_pricing, so the agent must infer the correct context. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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

• list_stylesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation by using 'Return', but does not disclose behavior like whether the list is static, locale-dependent, or requires authentication. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema). The description tells the agent it returns a list of styles/presets, which is sufficient for this scope. It could mention the return format, but not necessary for a list tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical list of image-generation styles or presets'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on styles/presets rather than pricing or links.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The purpose implies when to use it (when you need the list of styles/presets). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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