Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• configC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description lists actions including 'cache_clear' (destructive) and mentions deprecated aliases. No contradiction, but adds limited context beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single dense sentence with parenthetical lists, making it hard to parse. It combines multiple action categories and deprecated aliases without clear structure, reducing 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?

  With 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and full behavioral burden on the description, it fails to cover return values, action semantics, or parameter usage. The output schema exists but is unmentioned.

  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 does not explain parameters (key, value, action). The agent gets no meaning beyond the schema types and required fields.

  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 handles server config and credential setup, listing specific actions. It distinguishes from sibling config__open_relay by noting that tool opens the credential form. However, the broad scope and dense list reduce clarity.

  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?

  The description only offers one usage guideline: to use config__open_relay for opening the credential form. It does not explain when to use specific actions or how to choose among them, lacking guidance for the agent.

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

• generateA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses async behavior for video, which is not captured by annotations; annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false), consistent with generation.

  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?

  Two concise sentences with no filler; first covers purpose, second covers critical async flow.

  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?

  Despite having output schema, the description lacks information on most parameters, return values, and image generation behavior, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, description only mentions 'text prompt' and 'job_id' implicitly, leaving all other parameters undocumented.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool generates an image or video from a text prompt, distinguishing it from sibling tools like config or help.

  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?

  Explicitly mentions video is async and provides polling instructions, but does not specify when to use image vs video or provide alternatives.

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

• config__open_relayA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (opens browser) and return values, but does not mention authentication, idempotency, or potential side effects.

  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?

  Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise and 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?

  Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. It explains the action and return values, though additional context about error handling could be useful.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info; it is clear and accurate.

  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 opens a relay configuration form in the user's browser, specifying the action (open) and resource (relay configuration form). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'config' by being more specific.

  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 versus alternatives like 'config'. The description implies its purpose but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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

• understandA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds provider-specific behavioral context (media type support), which is valuable beyond the annotations.

  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?

  Two sentences, directly stating core function and provider distinction. No redundant information; front-loaded with the action.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter documentation, which is a significant gap given 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage. Overall adequate but incomplete.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (e.g., media_urls, prompt, tier, model). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool understands images/videos with a prompt, and distinguishes provider capabilities (Gemini supports mixed media, others image-only). Verb+resource+scope is specific, and no sibling tool performs this function.

  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?

  Description provides context on provider differences (mixed vs. image-only), helping select provider. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it.

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