Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_huggingface_modelC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '高速下载' (high-speed download) which hints at performance, but doesn't cover critical aspects like: whether this requires authentication, network usage implications, disk space requirements, error handling, or what happens when files already exist (beyond the 'force' parameter). For a download operation with 9 parameters and no annotations, this 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 is extremely concise - a single sentence with an emoji. It's front-loaded with the core action and contains no wasted words. Every element (emoji, action, resource, destination) serves a clear purpose in communicating the tool's function.

  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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, performance characteristics beyond 'high-speed', or how it interacts with the HuggingFace ecosystem. The user must rely entirely on the input schema for operational details, which is insufficient for proper tool selection and usage.

  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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It only mentions the general action of downloading models to local storage, which doesn't provide additional semantic context for individual parameters.

  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 ('高速下载' - high-speed download) and resource ('HuggingFace 模型' - HuggingFace models) with the destination ('到本地' - to local). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like explore_huggingface_repo or list_huggingface_files beyond the download action.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this download tool is preferred over other approaches. The user must infer usage from the action alone.

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

• list_huggingface_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions filtering and sorting capabilities, but does not cover critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function and key features (filtering and sorting). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for the missing contextual information needed for effective tool invocation.

  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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by hinting at filtering and sorting, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already explains. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 tool's purpose: '列出 HuggingFace 仓库中的文件' (list files in a HuggingFace repository). It specifies the action (list) and resource (files in a HuggingFace repo), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'explore_huggingface_repo' or 'search_huggingface_files', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '支持过滤和排序' (supports filtering and sorting), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'search_huggingface_files' available, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

• search_huggingface_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for files but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., returns file paths/metadata, pagination behavior, error handling for invalid repos). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit).

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('搜索') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

  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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of file names, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to use it effectively.

  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, providing clear details for all 4 parameters (repo_id format, query purpose, revision default, max_results default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 ('搜索' - search) and resource ('HuggingFace 仓库中...文件' - files in HuggingFace repository). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_huggingface_model' (downloads models) and 'list_huggingface_files' (lists files without search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'explore_huggingface_repo', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_huggingface_files' over 'list_huggingface_files' (e.g., for filtered results) or 'explore_huggingface_repo' (e.g., for broader repository exploration). There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• explore_huggingface_repoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool explores directory structure and returns a hierarchical file tree, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with large repositories. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., performance, limitations) and output details. For a tool with moderate complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

  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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_depth' affects traversal or what 'tree_view' output looks like). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('探索' meaning explore), the resource ('HuggingFace 仓库的目录结构'), and the output format ('返回层级化的文件树'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_huggingface_model' (which downloads), 'list_huggingface_files' (which might list without hierarchy), and 'search_huggingface_files' (which searches).

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'list_huggingface_files' for flat listings or 'search_huggingface_files' for filtered searches, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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