Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• text_to_imageC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it creates a task and returns outputs, but does not mention that the operation is asynchronous (implied by task id), whether it is destructive, or any side effects like cost. The polling behavior via 'wait' parameter is not explained.

  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 concise with a single sentence containing a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While not verbose, it lacks structure, but for a short description, it is adequate.

  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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and complex nested behavior (async task creation with polling), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to use the returned task id, what status results look like, or how the polling parameters interact. The description is incomplete for effective agent usage.

  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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters described). The tool description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents uninformed about crucial parameters like aspect_ratio, output_format, and output_resolution.

  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 ('Create'), the resource ('a Nano Banana task on RunAPI'), and context ('text to image'). It also mentions return values. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'edit_image', which could be confused for a similar image creation tool.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_image' or 'get_task'. There are no prerequisites, required parameters, or context indicating typical use cases.

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

• edit_imageB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description mentions returning a task id and status, implying async behavior, but does not explain the task lifecycle, how to provide an input image (missing from schema), or the role of parameters like wait and timeout_ms. No annotations exist to supplement this.

  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 efficiently communicates the primary action and return value. No extraneous information is present.

  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 async task-based tool with 6 parameters, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial details like how to provide the image, how to use polling/wait mechanisms, and what the output URLs represent.

  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 coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level information, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The lack of an image input parameter in the schema is puzzling and not addressed.

  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 creates a Nano Banana task for editing images, distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_to_image which generates new images. The verb 'Create' and resource 'edit image' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_image or get_task. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for using it.

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

• get_taskB
  3.3/5.0
  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 indicates a read-only fetch but does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, or what happens if the task_id is invalid. Minimal behavioral context.

  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 that is front-loaded with key action and resource. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.

  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?

  For a simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides basic return info (status, payload) but lacks details on error responses or interpretation. Adequate but not thorough.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both task_id and action. 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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'task', and what is returned ('current status and latest result payload'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (check_pricing, edit_image, text_to_image) which are for other operations.

  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. The context is implied (after creating a task), but no disclaimers or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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

• check_pricingA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Look up pricing' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the tool appears safe and non-destructive. However, it does not mention any additional traits like rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a simple lookup, this level of transparency is acceptable.

  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: a single sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

  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 that the tool is a simple lookup with no output schema, the combination of a clear description and a well-defined schema provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool. The only missing element is usage guidelines, but for this low complexity, the overall completeness is high.

  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, with each parameter having its own description and enum values. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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: looking up RunAPI pricing for the nano-banana model line. The verb 'look up' and the specific resource 'pricing for the nano-banana model line' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_image, get_task, and text_to_image.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Users must infer from the tool name and context, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'consider using X instead' information.

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