Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compose_imagesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool composes a new image but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a tool with no annotations and an implied mutation (creating a new image), this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Compose a new image,' 'using multiple input images,' 'and a guiding prompt') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the complexity of an image composition tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output details, or usage guidelines, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer how and when to use this tool effectively.

  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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'multiple input images' (implied by the 'images' array with minItems:2) and 'guiding prompt' (matching the 'prompt' parameter). It doesn't explain the 'saveToFilePath' parameter or provide additional context like image format constraints. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly compensate for gaps.

  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's purpose: 'Compose a new image using multiple input images and a guiding prompt.' It specifies the verb ('compose'), resource ('new image'), and key inputs (multiple images + prompt). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'edit_image' or 'generate_image' beyond mentioning 'multiple input images,' which might be insufficient for clear sibling distinction.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'edit_image' or 'generate_image,' nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing at least two images. Without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, the agent lacks direction for tool selection.

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

• edit_imageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool edits an image but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the original file or creates a new one), permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. The mention of 'saveToFilePath' hints at file creation, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and input requirements without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., file handling, error cases), doesn't explain the return value or output format, and provides minimal guidance on usage. Given the complexity of image editing, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

  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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'one input image via base64 or file path,' which is already clear in the schema. It doesn't explain the 'prompt' parameter's role beyond 'Describe the edit,' leaving the agent to rely on the schema's more detailed description.

  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 ('Edit an image') and the mechanism ('using a prompt'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate_image' (creation) and 'style_transfer' (style application). However, it doesn't specify what types of edits are possible beyond 'using a prompt,' making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compose_images' or 'style_transfer.' It mentions providing 'one input image,' but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• generate_imageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('using Gemini 2.5 Flash Image') but doesn't cover key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, error handling, or whether it's a read/write operation. For a generative tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity.

  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?

  Given the complexity of an image generation tool, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data, file path, errors), behavioral aspects like costs or limitations, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

  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 already documents both parameters ('prompt' and 'saveToFilePath') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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's purpose: 'Generate an image from a text prompt using Gemini 2.5 Flash Image'. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('image'), and method ('from a text prompt'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compose_images' or 'edit_image', which might also generate or modify images. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compose_images', 'edit_image', or 'style_transfer'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone. This lack of explicit guidance is a significant gap.

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

• style_transferC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens to the original images. The description mentions saving output but doesn't specify default behavior if 'saveToFilePath' is omitted.

  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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, inputs, and optional element without redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  For a complex image processing tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., image format, dimensions), error conditions, or practical constraints like image size limits. The lack of behavioral transparency and parameter guidance leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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 50%, with only 'prompt' and 'saveToFilePath' having descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional prompt but doesn't explain what constitutes effective prompts or the relationship between baseImage and styleImage beyond what the schema implies. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for the image objects.

  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 ('transfer style') and identifies the key resources ('style image' and 'base image'), with an optional prompt. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compose_images' or 'edit_image' by focusing specifically on style transfer rather than composition or editing. However, it doesn't specify the exact style transfer method or output format.

  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 'edit_image' or 'generate_image' is provided. The description mentions an optional prompt but doesn't explain when it's beneficial to include one. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools mentioned.

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