Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• edit_imageC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action ('edit, extend, or compose') without detailing side effects, permission requirements, or impact on original images. Key behavioral aspects (e.g., moderation, output modes) are omitted.

  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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. While brevity is positive, it omits critical information that would justify its length. It could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It covers only prompt and mask, leaving many configuration options (quality, background, output format, etc.) unexplained.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanation beyond 'prompt' and 'optional mask'. With 14 parameters including enums and nested objects, the agent receives no help understanding their meaning or usage.

  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 uses specific verbs 'edit, extend, or compose images' and mentions the key inputs (prompt, optional mask). It clearly indicates the tool's main function, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'edit_image_conversation'.

  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 alternatives (e.g., generate_image). Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts.

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

• generate_imageC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a generative, non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on output format, potential costs, rate limits, or safety mechanisms. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

  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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from brief parameter explanations or usage examples without becoming verbose.

  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?

  Given the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address return values, configuration options, or any operational context needed for effective use.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., size, n, output_format). The agent receives no semantic help beyond the schema names and types, which is insufficient for an 11-parameter 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 action ('Generate image(s)') and the resource ('from a text prompt'), and identifies the specific model family ('OpenAI gpt-image models'). It differentiates from siblings like 'edit_image' by focusing on generation from scratch.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., edit_image, image_capabilities). The description does not specify prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.

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

• edit_image_conversationB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description reveals statefulness via previous_response_id, a key behavioral trait, and implies iterative dependency. However, it does not discuss other behaviors like error states, side effects, or the meaning of the action enum, which are left uncovered.

  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, effectively front-loading the key differentiator. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits information about return values, parameter interactions, and usage patterns beyond statefulness, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds meaning only for previous_response_id by explaining its role in statefulness. Other parameters like partial_images, input_image_mask, and output remain undefined, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 explicitly states 'Multi-turn iterative image editing', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like edit_image (likely single-turn) and generate_image. The mention of 'stateful by previous_response_id' further clarifies the specific use case.

  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 multi-turn editing through statefulness but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_image or provide conditions for when not to use this tool. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites are given.

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

• image_capabilitiesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states what information the tool returns (models, params, limits, pricing, defaults), and 'Discover' implies a non-mutating 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?

  A single sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or missing words. Every piece of information earns its place.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given no output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently lists all the information the agent can expect: models, parameters, limits, pricing, and defaults. It is complete for an introspection 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?

  There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no param info, which is appropriate given zero parameters (baseline 4).

  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 uses the specific verb 'Discover' and lists the exact resources (models, allowed params, size/quality limits, pricing, defaults). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are image editing/generation actions.

  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 using this tool to understand capabilities before using siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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