Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists available models and hints at web project integration but fails to describe critical behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when images are generated (e.g., saved to disk, returned as data). For a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted list of models. However, the model list could be more concise (e.g., by grouping similar models), and some sentences like 'Supports web project paths, responsive formats, and inline preview' are vague and could be tightened.

  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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., image URLs, file paths), error conditions, web development integration specifics, and behavioral constraints. For a generative tool with multiple parameters, this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by listing model options with quality/style notes, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining 'web_project_path' integration or 'project_type' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 generates images using EverArt Models and specifies it's optimized for web development, which provides a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_images' or 'view_image' beyond the core generation function, preventing 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 'list_images' or 'view_image'. It mentions web development optimization but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other image-related tools or when not to use it, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• view_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. It states the tool opens an image in a viewer, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it launches an external application, or any error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist). This leaves gaps for safe agent invocation.

  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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency (e.g., what happens if the file is missing), and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to compensate, making it inadequate for safe agent operation.

  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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'filename' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context like file format support or path specifications.

  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 ('Open') and resource ('stored image'), specifying it opens in the default image viewer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' (creates new images) or 'list_images' (lists existing images), which is a minor gap.

  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 prerequisites (e.g., the image must already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'generate_image' for creating images or 'list_images' for browsing available images.

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

• list_imagesB
  3.1/5.0
  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 action ('List all stored images') but doesn't describe what 'List' entails—such as whether it returns metadata, thumbnails, or full images; if there's pagination or filtering; or any performance or rate-limiting considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 'List all stored images' is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'List' returns (e.g., a list of image IDs, metadata, or URLs), which is critical for a tool with no output schema. For a basic list operation, more context on the return format is needed to be complete.

  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?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters to explain, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary information.

  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 'List all stored images' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('stored images'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_image' (which might show a single image) or 'generate_image' (which creates new images), so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'view_image' or 'generate_image'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these tools, leaving the usage unclear.

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