Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gamma_generateA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses asynchronous behavior, polling requirement, and parameter constraints (e.g., char limits, folder count). Without annotations, it carries the full burden and provides substantial behavioral insight beyond the schema.

  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 structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by an async note and a detailed parameter list. While thorough, it is lengthy and could benefit from earlier mention of core workflow (generate, poll, retrieve).

  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 description covers the full workflow (async generation, polling, retrieval) and references sibling tools (gamma_get_status, gamma_describe_options). It lacks only a direct comparison to gamma_generate_from_template, but the output schema exists, reducing the need for return-value details.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by detailing each parameter's purpose, allowable values, defaults, and nested structures (e.g., text_options, image_options). Examples and constraints (max 5000 chars, min 1 card) add clarity the schema lacks.

  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 various Gamma outputs from text. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling gamma_generate_from_template, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the template-based alternative.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or alternatives. It references gamma_describe_options for enum values but lacks context on decision-making between this and sibling tools like gamma_generate_from_template.

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

• gamma_get_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It covers polling behavior and output fields but omits error handling, timeouts, or consequences of invalid generation_id. This leaves gaps for an agent to anticipate failure modes.

  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 compact and logically ordered: purpose, preconditions, polling behavior, output fields, and an explicit Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to use it, and what results to expect. No critical gaps remain.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly states the single parameter generation_id is 'The generationId returned from a generate call,' providing clear provenance. No additional constraints are needed for a simple ID string.

  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 'Poll a generation job to retrieve status and results,' specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gamma_generate and gamma_describe_options by focusing on status retrieval after generation.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly instructs to call after gamma_generate or gamma_generate_from_template with the returned generationId. Provides polling frequency guidance and expected terminal statuses ('completed' or 'failed').

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

• gamma_generate_from_templateA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses layout preservation, content generation, single-page template requirement, and limits (max 10 folder IDs). Does not mention auth or rate limits, but covers core behavioral traits.

  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?

  Concise and well-organized. One sentence summary, endpoint reference, usage guidance, then parameter block. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 7 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema (not shown but sufficient), description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter docs, and behavioral constraints. References sibling tool for shared parameter shapes. Complete and self-contained.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has 0% description coverage; description compensates fully. Each parameter gets a meaningful description: prompt length constraint, gamma_id required, theme_id optional, image_options/sharing_options reference to sibling tool, folder_ids cap, export_as enum values. Adds crucial context beyond schema types.

  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?

  Clear verb-resource pairing: 'Generate a variant from an existing Gamma template with swapped content.' Specifies the endpoint and constraint (template must have exactly one page). Distinguishes from sibling gamma_generate by focusing on template reuse.

  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?

  Provides ideal use cases: 'batch content with consistent branding' with examples. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context implies contrast with gamma_generate for scratch generation.

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

• gamma_list_foldersA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes cursor-paginated behavior and links to other tools, but without annotations, it does not disclose read-only nature or rate limits. However, it respects the tool's expected 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?

  Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination, then parameter details. No wasted words.

  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?

  Covers all essential aspects: purpose, pagination, parameter descriptions, and usage integration with other tools. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: query as substring filter, limit with range and default meaning, and after as cursor for pagination.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'workspace folders', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gamma_generate and gamma_list_themes.

  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?

  Provides context for when to use (to obtain folder IDs for gamma_generate calls) and explains filter options, but lacks explicit exclusions for alternative tools.

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

• gamma_list_themesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses returns both standard and custom themes with colorKeywords/toneKeywords metadata, and cursor-based pagination.

  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?

  Concise and well-structured: brief intro followed by clear Args section. Every sentence adds value.

  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 output schema exists, description covers return metadata and pagination adequately. All three parameters explained with constraints.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: query filters by substring, limit specifies page size (1-50, 0 for default), after for pagination cursor.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool lists themes available in the authenticated workspace, distinguishes from siblings like gamma_generate which uses theme_id.

  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?

  Explains that the returned theme_id is used in gamma_generate or gamma_generate_from_template; mentions filtering and pagination. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

• gamma_describe_optionsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description fully carries the burden by stating it's a local lookup (no network call) and no side effects are implied. The behavior is transparent and clearly described.

  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, with a clear structure: a sentence stating the purpose, a line about no network call, and an args section with detailed bullet points. No unnecessary information.

  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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage context completely for a parameter discovery tool.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides exhaustive detail on the 'category' parameter (listing all possible values) and clarifies that 'format' filters dimensions by format for specific categories. This adds significant value 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 tool's purpose: describing accepted enum values for Gamma API parameters. It specifies that it is a local lookup with no network call, distinguishing it from sibling tools (generate, status, folders, themes).

  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 provides context for when to use the tool (to discover valid values) and lists possible categories and the format filter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it's slightly less than perfect.

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