Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyzeImageC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or any operational constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is concise at one sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not elaborate on the various analysis types or output formats, making it minimally adequate rather than well-structured.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It fails to describe the output format or mention the analysisType options, leaving the tool incomplete for effective use. The analysisType enum in the schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself is insufficient.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including enums for detail and analysisType. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 'Analyze images and extract information' clearly identifies the tool's function (analyze) and resource (images), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generateImage and modifyImage. However, 'extract information' is vague and does not specify what information is extracted, limiting clarity.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. It does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases, offering no context for tool selection.

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

• applyStyleTransferC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation mutates the input image, returns a new image, or has side effects. No details on image format constraints, size limits, or error conditions are given, so the agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic function.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient. However, it may be too sparse, but for what it says, it is well-structured.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  The tool has three parameters (including an enum and base64 input) and lacks both annotations and an output schema. The one-line description does not explain what the tool returns, any constraints, or behavioral nuances, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters with clear definitions. The description adds no extra meaning, such as how intensity interacts with style or the base64 encoding contract. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation, and the description does not contradict or enhance it.

  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 a specific verb+resource: 'Apply artistic styles to existing images.' It implies a transformation operation and distinguishes from generation by specifying 'existing images,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from modifyImage, which could overlap. Thus, it's clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like modifyImage or generateImage. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• generateImageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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, but it only mentions the use of Google Gemini. It does not explain output format (e.g., URL, base64), potential side effects (cost, rate limits), or default behaviors, making it inadequate for a generation tool.

  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 sentence with no superfluous words, front-loading the core action. It is perfectly concise.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or typical use cases, and given the existence of sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

  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 tool generates images from text prompts, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from batchGenerate, which also generates images, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modifyImage, analyzeImage, or batchGenerate. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• modifyImageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'modify' without mentioning what the tool returns, whether it mutates the input, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that processes image data.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief but could benefit from a bit more detail, yet this dimension focuses on structure and size, which is well-handled.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (image editing with optional parameters) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output will be (e.g., a modified image in what format) or how the optional parameters affect behavior, leaving the agent without essential context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Since schema description coverage is 100%, all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely echoing the concept of 'text instructions' (matching the 'instructions' parameter) without elaborating on 'strength' or 'preserveStyle'.

  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: 'Modify existing images with text instructions.' It uses a specific verb (modify) and resource (existing images), and contrasts with sibling tools like generateImage (creation) and analyzeImage (reading), making its purpose distinct.

  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 usage for editing existing images via text prompts, which differentiates it from generation or analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the guidance to inference.

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

• batchGenerateB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states the basic action and does not mention how the batch is processed, whether failures are handled per-prompt, if output is returned directly or asynchronously, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a batch operation.

  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 that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured, though brevity in other dimensions is penalized separately.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Despite the schema being fully documented, the description lacks important contextual information such as what the tool returns, how it handles multiple prompts (parallel vs sequential), and any prerequisites or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, this incompleteness is notable.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema descriptions cover both parameters (prompts and baseOptions) fully, so the additional value from the description is minimal. The description's 'different prompts' aligns with the prompts array but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

  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 verb ('Generate'), resource ('images'), and scope ('multiple', 'different prompts'), which distinguishes it from the sibling generateImage that implies single-image generation. It is specific and instantly conveys the tool's core function.

  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 usage for batch image generation with multiple prompts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over generateImage or other siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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