Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hunter_batch_task_createA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the tool is asynchronous, returns a task_id, and exports CSV. However, it does not mention credit costs (hinted in parameters), destructive potential, or authorization requirements.

  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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers multiple modes and the return value, though there is slight redundancy between the first and third sentences.

  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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It mentions async behavior and return of task_id but omits credit costs, prerequisites, and explicit next steps (though hinted).

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces mutual exclusivity of search and file_path but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

  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 batch query task for Qianxin Hunter, specifying asynchronous CSV export and two input modes (file upload or search syntax). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hunter_search (single search) and the other batch task tools (progress check, download).

  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/async queries but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like hunter_search. It mentions two modes (file_path vs search) but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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

• hunter_batch_task_progressA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or behavior on invalid task. Only states 'view progress' with no additional 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, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words.

  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?

  Simple tool with one param and output schema present. Description adequately explains basic usage, though could mention polling or read-only nature for 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's parameter description; it merely restates the parameter's purpose.

  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 ('查看/view') and resource ('Qianxin Hunter 批量查询任务的执行进度'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hunter_batch_task_create and hunter_batch_task_result_download.

  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?

  Implies usage after task creation via required task_id, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Siblings are listed but not compared.

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

• hunter_searchA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. It only mentions the query syntax and field optimization.

  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, front-loading the core purpose and a practical tip, with no redundant information.

  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?

  With 8 parameters fully described in schema and an output schema present, the description is adequate but lacks deeper guidance on query construction or edge cases like time range handling.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful tip about fields and page_size for asset counts, providing some added value 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 uses Qianxin Hunter syntax for real-time small batch cyberspace mapping queries, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a small batch query versus the batch task tools.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool (small batch real-time) and a tip for asset count queries, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like the batch task tools.

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

• hunter_batch_task_result_downloadA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving locally and CSV format but does not cover error handling, file overwrite behavior, or network retry logic. Adequate for a simple download tool but lacks 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?

  The description is two sentences, each delivering essential information: the primary action and the necessary prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core function, contains no redundant words, and every sentence 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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key aspects: action, format, save behavior, and usage context with sibling tools. Minor missing details like file size limits do not significantly detract from 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by confirming the download action and local save context, but does not provide additional constraints or meanings for parameters beyond what the schema states.

  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 identifies the tool as downloading a CSV export file from Qianxin Hunter batch queries, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hunter_batch_task_create and hunter_batch_task_progress by specifying the output format and local save behavior.

  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 states the prerequisite of confirming task completion via hunter_batch_task_progress, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, list alternative tools for when to not use this tool, but the context is implied.

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