Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• batch_generateA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions parallel processing and shared settings but lacks details on failure modes, rate limits, memory usage, or specific model behaviors. The transparent_background parameter includes some cost context, but the main description is insufficient.

  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 contains three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key feature (parallel processing). No extraneous information is present.

  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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, batch processing), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or limitations. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more context about batch behavior and performance trade-offs would improve completeness.

  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 already covers 85% of parameters with descriptions. The main description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating that all images share the same settings. The parameter descriptions themselves are detailed, particularly for transparent_background, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

  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's function: generating multiple images from a list of prompts efficiently in parallel batches. It explicitly differentiates from siblings like generate_image and generate_app_icon by emphasizing batch processing and shared settings.

  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 batch generation with shared settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names provide some context, but no direct guidance is given.

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

• generate_imageA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: discloses thinking modes, transparent background mechanism with failure mode, watermarking, and cost implications. Very detailed and honest about behaviors.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very long and uses decorative elements. While all sentences add value, it is not concise. It is front-loaded but the length may hinder quick scanning.

  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?

  Given the complexity (12 parameters, output schema), the description is complete: covers all parameters, behavior, return format, and even assistant instructions. The presence of output schema reduces need for return value detail.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds extensive meaning: tips for prompt, use cases for search parameters, detailed explanation of transparent_background with underlying process, and lists options for aspect_ratio, image_size, etc.

  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 is a Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Generation tool, with specific capabilities listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on single image generation with advanced features like search and transparency.

  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?

  Provides extensive when-to-use guidance, such as using simple prompts, when to enable Google/Image search, and using high thinking level for best results. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is still very clear.

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

• generate_app_iconA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It thoroughly explains forced behaviors: transparent background, square aspect ratio, 1K resolution, PNG format, and cut-out only. It also describes the prompt guard and its exception. However, it lacks mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond file creation. For a generation tool, the disclosed traits are comprehensive, earning a 4.

  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 well-structured with sections, emojis, and clear formatting. It front-loads the purpose and forced settings. However, it is quite verbose and could be trimmed; some information is repeated (e.g., the prompt rule is emphasized multiple times). Still, the organization aids readability and earns a 4.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, prompt rules, parameter details, result format, and next steps (open in viewer, convert to .icns, etc.). It leaves little ambiguity, making it highly complete.

  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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so with a dedicated '📋 PARAMETERS' section that details each parameter's purpose, constraints, and defaults (e.g., prompt must avoid icon-related words, reference_image_paths up to 14, thinking_level options). This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating app icons and logos. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool generate_image by saying 'Use THIS tool — not generate_image — whenever the user asks for an app icon, application icon, .icns, etc.' This provides a specific verb+resource and sets it apart from alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs generate_image, including a list of use cases. It also provides clear rules for writing prompts (what to include and avoid), and explains when to use the escape hatch for allow_icon_words_in_prompt. This covers both when to use and when not to.

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