Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• 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 disclose behaviors, and it does mention saving to disk and returning a file path, which is a key side effect. Yet it omits other important behaviors such as overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling, leaving gaps in 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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose and return value. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured.

  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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential flow: generate, save to disk, and return the file path. It does not provide guidance on model/size selection or potential edge cases, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter details, so it remains at the 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 it generates an image from a text prompt, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools edit_image and list_models by focusing on creation from text.

  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 that this tool is for generating new images from text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like edit_image for existing images, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• edit_imageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Saves to disk and returns the file path,' which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention whether original input images are modified, overwriting behavior, or output format requirements, leaving gaps in 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 two sentences, starting with the core action and then the output behavior. It uses concise, direct language with no unnecessary filler.

  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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: input images, prompt, save, and return. It would benefit from an explicit note about using generate_image for new images, but overall it is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage.

  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 description is not required to repeat parameter details. It adds meaning by clarifying the `images` parameter (first is base, others references) and the `prompt` as a 'text prompt,' which enriches the schema definitions.

  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 'Edit or combine images per a text prompt,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as image editing/combination. It also mentions the base/reference role of images, distinguishing it from sibling generate_image which likely creates new images 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  It explains that the first image is the base and others are references, giving clear guidance on how to structure the images array. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over generate_image, so it lacks an explicit exclusion clause.

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

• list_modelsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description only states that it lists IDs, without disclosing any behavioral details such as whether the list is comprehensive, sorted, or if it might return empty. The description is straightforward but does not go beyond the obvious.

  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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource.

  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, no-parameter listing tool, the description adequately conveys its purpose and relationship to sibling tools. Although no output schema exists, the phrase 'List ... ids' sufficiently indicates the return type is a collection of model IDs.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema already covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this scores 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 'List' and clearly specifies the resource as 'Gemini image model ids' and its purpose 'usable with generate_image/edit_image'. This distinguishes it from its siblings which perform generation/editing.

  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 it is used to obtain model ids for generate_image and edit_image, but does not explicitly state when to call it or when not to. It provides clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance or exclusions.

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