Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gemini_generate_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that images are saved to assets/images and returns a human-readable summary listing file paths, which is useful. However, it omits details about overwrite behavior, file format, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

  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 front-loaded with the main purpose and structured into Args/Returns sections. It is scannable and includes only necessary detail about model override, though the model note adds a bit of length. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-organized.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no visible output schema, the description covers the primary action and return value but misses contextual details like failure handling, file extension behavior, and permission or API key prerequisites. It is adequate for the main happy path but not fully comprehensive.

  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 description coverage is 0%, and the description effectively compensates by explaining all three parameters: prompt as text description, model with default from environment and newer option, and filename as optional base filename without extension. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

  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 states 'Generate an image with Google Gemini (Nano Banana) and save to assets/images', which is a specific verb+resource+destination. The mention of 'Google Gemini (Nano Banana)' clearly differentiates it from the sibling openai_generate_image, and 'image' distinguishes it from gemini_generate_video.

  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 clearly implies this tool is for Gemini-based image generation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. It does include usage guidance via the model override option and default from environment variables, giving clear context without exclusions.

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

• openai_generate_imageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 transparently states the side effect of saving images to assets/images, the return summary format, and model-specific constraints (e.g., 'gpt-image-2 supports arbitrary sizes with width/height divisible by 16' and 'Number of images (1-10 for gpt-image-2)'). This goes beyond a basic summary, though it omits auth requirements or rate limits.

  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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no filler. The format is front-loaded and easy to scan.

  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 all six parameters and the return format, making it self-sufficient for invocation. Since an output schema exists, the return description is a bonus. It lacks only a note on prerequisites like API key setup, but that is not critical for the tool's core operation.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: prompt, size with examples and constraints, quality values, n range, model default, and filename usage. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 begins with 'Generate image(s) with OpenAI's Images API and save them to assets/images,' which specifies the verb (generate), resource (images via OpenAI), and location (assets/images). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its Gemini siblings by naming OpenAI explicitly.

  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 OpenAI image generation but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'use gemini_generate_image for Google's model' or exclusions for video generation. The context is implied through the OpenAI-specific details but lacks direct comparison.

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

• gemini_generate_videoA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 clearly explains the async lifecycle: submits the job, polls until done, downloads the result, and can take a few minutes. It also specifies the save location, which is valuable context 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a short async-behavior note, and an Args list. Every sentence provides needed information without padding; no redundancy with schema fields, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

  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?

  For a complex async tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input parameters, behavior, timing, save destination, and return value. The stated return summary is sufficient especially given that an output schema exists.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: prompt, model with default details, negative_prompt, aspect_ratio allowed values, and filename semantics. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

  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 'Generate a video with Google Veo (via Gemini API) and save to assets/videos', naming the specific verb, resource, and destination. This distinguishes it from sibling image-generation tools by focusing explicitly on video generation.

  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 clear context for use, including that it is async and can take minutes, and offers model guidance ('Use veo-3.1-fast-generate-preview for speed'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as the image tools, but the video-specific purpose makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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