Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gamma_create_from_templateB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description only says 'adapts content' without detailing behavioral aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the template.

  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?

  Single sentence, no redundancy. Could benefit from more structure (e.g., listing key parameters), but still concise.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or detailed behavior. Highly incomplete for a creation tool.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal context ('adapts content') but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

  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 'create' and the resource 'gamma based on an existing template', distinguishing it from siblings like gamma_generate (generate from scratch) and listing tools.

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., gamma_generate). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• gamma_list_foldersA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states it lists folders and mentions IDs, but fails to disclose pagination behavior (though schema includes pagination params) or any other behavioral traits like read-only nature.

  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 two concise sentences with no extraneous words, directly addressing the tool's purpose and a key usage insight.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a usage hint. However, it lacks explanation of pagination behavior and response format, which would be helpful given no output schema.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small hint about using returned IDs, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema descriptions.

  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 it lists folders in the workspace, which is distinct from sibling tools like gamma_create_from_template or gamma_generate. It also specifies the purpose of the returned IDs.

  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 hints at using returned IDs for other tools' folderIds parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools, nor provides guidance on when not to use it.

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

• gamma_generateA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly mentions asynchronous generation and polling, and export link expiration from the schema. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error handling.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, the second specifies the return value and polling need. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  With 17 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the generation workflow, asynchronous nature, or provide examples. The parameter descriptions in the schema are thorough, but the tool description itself is incomplete for a complex tool.

  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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond stating the return value. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or behaviors.

  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?

  Description clearly states it generates presentations, documents, social posts, or webpages from text input, and returns a generationId. This distinguishes it from siblings like gamma_create_from_template (template-based) and gamma_get_generation (polling).

  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 a polling workflow by mentioning returns a generationId, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for templates and polling, but no direct guidance is provided.

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

• gamma_list_themesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.

  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 concise, using two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded.

  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 list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and hints at output usage. The parameters are fully described in the schema. However, it could briefly mention the output format or pagination behavior.

  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% description coverage, so the parameters are already well-documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('List'), resource ('themes'), and scope ('in your workspace'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gamma_list_folders. The additional hint about using returned IDs for the themeId parameter adds context.

  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 provides some usage guidance by telling the agent to use the returned IDs for the themeId parameter, implying use when needing theme IDs. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention any alternative tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• gamma_get_generationA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses polling as the primary action but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or auth requirements. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not exhaustive. More context on potential response fields or failure modes would elevate transparency.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose and polling behavior. No superfluous words. It front-loads the action ('Check the status') and provides a clear instruction ('Poll until status is completed').

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the critical aspects: what it does and how to use it (polling). It does not detail the response format or error states, but for a polling status check, this level of completeness is sufficient. An example or more explicit success/failure cues would make it fully complete.

  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 sole parameter 'generationId' has a clear description in the schema ('The generation ID returned from gamma_generate'), and the tool description adds value by explaining the polling context and expected status field. This goes beyond the schema, helping the agent understand the parameter's role in the overall workflow.

  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 purpose: checking the status of a gamma generation and polling until completion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gamma_generate (which creates) and gamma_list_folders/themes (which list resources), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

  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 description implies usage after generating, with polling behavior ('Poll until status is completed'). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of generation and polling is clear. An explicit exclusion (e.g., 'Do not use before generating') would improve, but current guidance is sufficient.

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