Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• refine_posterA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the core action (edit via natural language) and mentions brand kit re-application. But it omits behavioral traits such as whether edits are destructive or reversible, idempotency, or authentication needs.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and a helpful parenthetical list of instructions. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

  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 no output schema, the description explains usage for a modification tool. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or scope of changes. Adequate but leaves gaps.

  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 descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the source of design_id and providing instruction examples, but does not significantly enhance the meaning of use_brand beyond the 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 verb 'Edit' and resource 'previously generated Ridvay design', with concrete examples. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like generate_poster (creation) and check_poster (status).

  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 prerequisite: 'Requires the design ID returned by generate_poster.' Provides example instructions. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare directly to alternatives like create_poster.

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

• check_posterA
  4.2/5.0
  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 explains the tool checks rendering status and returns links, but does not disclose potential error behavior, permissions needed, or side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

  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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, what it returns (status and links). Minor lack of details on error handling, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

  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%, with the parameter description stating 'The design ID returned by generate_poster.' The tool description adds extra context by specifying that this tool is used after generate_poster, enhancing the parameter's meaning beyond the 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 checks if AI images have finished rendering for a generated Ridvay design and retrieves view/edit links. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is used after generate_poster indicates ongoing rendering.

  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 'Use after generate_poster reports images still rendering,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies not to use it if rendering is complete, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

• generate_posterA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the generation process, output (links to view/share/edit), and typical run time. It does not cover rate limits, errors, or destruction behavior, but the creation action is implied.

  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?

  Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the return value (links). It covers parameters, usage advice, and run time. Missing details like error handling or success conditions, but sufficient for a generation tool with 4 simple parameters.

  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 100% coverage, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by explaining the structure of the prompt ('content, occasion, style, text'), clarifying the 'share' parameter, and giving examples for 'size'. This enriches understanding beyond the 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 specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'graphic design', listing multiple output types (poster, flyer, social-media post, etc.) and distinguishing from siblings like 'check_poster' and 'refine_poster' by emphasizing AI generation from a text brief.

  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 advises users to describe content, occasion, style, and required text, and notes typical run time. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'create_poster', but the usage context is clear.

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

• get_design_guideA
  4.2/5.0
  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 describes the tool as returning a design guide and implies it is a read-only operation, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits.

  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 concise with two sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it returns, the second provides the usage context. No extraneous information.

  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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains its role among siblings (get_design_guide is a prerequisite for create_poster). It lists key components of the returned guide, though a full format specification is not provided.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params). The description adds context by explaining the purpose and contents of the returned data, which compensates for the lack of an output 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 states explicitly that the tool returns the Ridvay design IR format including JSON contract, element types, fonts, backgrounds, and a worked example. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (like create_poster) by positioning itself as a prerequisite step.

  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 provides clear guidance: 'Always call this before your first create_poster call.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list conditions when not to use it or alternatives.

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

• create_posterA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: no AI generation, user controls all elements, and returns view/share/edit links. It could be more specific about validation or side effects but is quite transparent.

  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 three succinct sentences, each adding essential information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides prerequisite and alternative guidance.

  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 nested design object and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, return format, and key behavioral aspects. It could mention overwrite behavior or identification details but is largely 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by reminding to use get_design_guide for the design parameter's IR format and explaining the share parameter's default and privacy implications beyond the 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 verb ('Save a poster design') and resource ('Ridvay design IR'), and distinguishes it from related tools. It specifies that the user controls every element and Ridvay only stores/renders/shares, leaving no ambiguity.

  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 explicitly advises calling get_design_guide first for the IR format and using generate_poster when AI should do the designing, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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