Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• text-to-imageA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the side effect of 'saves it to disk,' which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, costs, whether files may overwrite existing files, or failure modes. The schema mentions checking for user preference and asking the user, which helps, but that's schema content, not description.

  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, efficient sentence that packs in the verb, resource, providers, and side effect with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and every element earns its place.

  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?

  This is a moderately complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, but the schema descriptions are rich (100% coverage) and cover the tricky provider-selection logic extensively. The description adds the essential context: providers list and disk persistence. While it could mention that model/quality/defaults differ by provider, the schema already hints at this, so combined coverage is reasonably complete. A note about return/error behaviors would push this higher.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value beyond the schema by naming the concrete providers and noting the disk-save behavior. The descriptions add the cross-reference to list_image_providers for discovering model options, which complements the schema. For a high-coverage schema, the description provides useful extra framing about provider-specific defaults without duplicating schema content.

  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 (generates an image from a text prompt), names the four available providers, and notes it saves to disk. It distinguishes itself from the sibling image-to-image tool since it specifies 'from a text prompt.' However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, and 'using Gemini, Grok Image, GPT-image, or impossibl.com' is somewhat redundant given the provider enum in the schema.

  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 text-to-image generation without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling image-to-image tool. The provider parameter's schema provides substantial context about asking the user which provider to use, but that's structured data rather than description content. No explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or prerequisites is given in the description itself.

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

• image-to-imageA
  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 discloses the save-to-disk behavior, provider limitations (impossibl unsupported), per-provider image count constraints, default model/quality tiers (non-top-tier defaults), and the provider-selection decision flow. Also discloses the memory/ask-user behavior. It doesn't mention auth/permission needs, but the structured schema already documents API key configuration requirements.

  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 tight sentence that packs the essential purpose. However, significant guidance lives inside the provider parameter's schema description rather than the main description, which means the core description alone is minimal. It's not bloated but arguably shifted more responsibility to schema fields than ideal for a 5.

  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 schema covers all parameters at 100% coverage and documents the tricky provider-selection decision flow. The description handles the main purpose well. Gaps: no output schema describing what gets returned beyond 'saves result to disk,' and details around multiple input images handling are only lightly covered. For a moderately complex 8-param tool with full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete.

  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 itself documents all 8 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying provider-specific limits (Grok 1 image, Gemini/GPT-image multiple) and noting impossibl doesn't support editing at all — details beyond the raw schema. However, most other params (size, quality, filename, aspect_ratio) are adequately documented in schema and the description doesn't add further meaning beyond that baseline.

  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: 'Edits or transforms one or more input images according to a text prompt,' naming three provider options and explicitly the save-to-disk behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by addressing input-image transformation rather than generation, and it explicitly notes impossibl.com is unsupported, adding clarity about scope.

  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?

  The description and schema give explicit guidance: when multiple providers are configured, check memory for a stored preference, otherwise ask the user which provider to use. It also explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('impossibl.com does not support image editing at all — do not select it for this tool'), and the input_images param description notes Grok supports 1 image vs. Gemini/GPT-image multiple, guiding provider selection.

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

• list_image_providersA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses important behavioral traits: it discovers models live from each provider, it considers only API-key-configured providers, and it identifies the default. The refresh parameter hint about caching is in the schema. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it reasonably discloses the live-discovery behavior and default-selection logic.

  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?

  One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource while packing in the key behaviors (config-based filtering, live model discovery, default determination). It's dense but not bloated; there's marginal room to trim but no waste present.

  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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it lists, how it discovers models, and what default is reported. It doesn't detail return format, but with no output schema and read-like behavior this is a reasonable stopping point. Slight gap on return structure, hence not a 5.

  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 100% (single refresh param well documented in schema). The description adds value by explaining that the default provider/model selection is reported and that models are discovered live, providing context beyond the bare schema. Baseline of 3 applies with full coverage, and the description contributes supplementary context, warranting a 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 a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('which image providers are configured via API key'), and elaborates on the specific outputs: available models discovered live, and default provider/model selection. It clearly distinguishes from siblings text-to-image and image-to-image, which are generation tools rather than 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies this is an informational discovery tool (list configured providers and their models), which clearly contrasts with the sibling generation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this to discover available providers before calling text-to-image' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so there's some implicit rather than explicit usage framing.

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