Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_configuration_statusA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, side effects, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent uninformed.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., specifying return type).

  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 simple check tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks crucial details about what the check returns (e.g., boolean, error message) and how to interpret results.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 is assigned since the description need not add parameter info.

  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 verb 'check' and resource 'Gemini API token configuration status', distinguishing it from sibling 'configure_gemini_token' which sets the token.

  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?

  Implied use is to verify configuration status, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison with alternative tools are provided.

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

• configure_gemini_tokenA
  3.6/5.0
  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 only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the token is persisted, validated, or affects other tools. There is no mention of side effects or prerequisites beyond providing the key.

  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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose and parameter. Some additional context about the token's lifecycle or its role as a prerequisite for other tools would be helpful but not essential.

  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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'apiKey' described as 'Your Gemini API key from Google AI Studio'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: 'Configure your Gemini API token for nano-banana image generation'. The verb 'configure' paired with the resource 'Gemini API token' makes the action specific and distinct from sibling tools which involve editing or generating images.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that configuration is needed before using image generation tools, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• edit_imageA
  3.7/5.0
  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 does not mention whether editing overwrites the original file, creates a new file, or what side effects (e.g., destructive changes) occur. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  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 very concise at two sentences, with the key action and usage context front-loaded. No wasted words.

  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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not describe the return value, whether the file is overwritten, supported image formats, or error conditions. For a 4-parameter tool, more context would be beneficial.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minor value by mentioning optional use of reference images and the model default, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 edits a specific existing image file, optionally using reference images. It uses strong verbs ('Edit') and specifies the resource ('existing image file'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_image which creates new images.

  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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this when you have the exact file path of an image to modify.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

• generate_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states creation purpose. Does not disclose side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or output format. Adequate for a simple create tool but minimal depth.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with key action, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.

  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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, description covers core purpose and usage constraint. Missing return behavior (e.g., image URL or data) but sufficient for basic use.

  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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds usage context but does not provide additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Generate a NEW image from text prompt' with specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from modifications, differentiating from sibling edit_image.

  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 states when to use: 'ONLY when creating a completely new image, not when modifying an existing one.' Lacks explicit mention of alternative edit_image but exclusion is clear.

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

• continue_editingA
  4.1/5.0
  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 that the tool automatically uses the previous image, which is key. However, it does not describe what happens if no previous image exists, whether the tool modifies session state, or what the output is. For a mutation tool, more behavioral detail is needed.

  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: the first defines what the tool does, the second explains its use case. It is clear, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or fluff.

  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?

  There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or behavior, but it does not. It also omits error conditions (e.g., no previous image in session). Given the complexity of image editing with optional references, the description is incomplete.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of reference images (style transfer, adding elements) and the automatic use of the previous image, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.

  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 continues editing the last image from the session, with optional reference images. It specifies the verb 'continue editing', the resource 'last image', and distinguishes from siblings like edit_image (which likely requires a file path) and generate_image (creates new).

  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 explicitly says to use for iterative improvements on the most recent image and notes that it automatically uses the previous image without needing a file path. This guides the agent on when to use this tool instead of edit_image or generate_image. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

• get_last_image_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description indicates a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Lacks details on session scope persistence or 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 with no redundant words. Front-loaded with core purpose and immediate use-case. Highly efficient.

  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?

  Adequately covers purpose and usage context. Without output schema, it provides example return fields. Could mention exact response format, but sufficient for a simple tool.

  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?

  No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no param info, but baseline for zero parameters is 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?

  Clearly states verb 'Get information' and resource 'last generated/edited image in this session', with examples (file path, size). Distinguishes purpose from sibling tools by referencing continue_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?

  Explicitly advises using this tool to check the current image before calling continue_editing. No when-not-to-use clarification, but context is clear.

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