Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sunat_listar_datasetsA
  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 burden. It states the tool lists datasets but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination (since no params, likely all results at once), or the exact structure of each result beyond the 'dataset' field.

  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 wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

  Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the data source, gives examples, and links to the next tool. However, it could describe the output format more fully, though the sibling tool reference compensates.

  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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining how to use the output (the 'dataset' field) with another tool, which is 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 lists SUNAT datasets, provides examples (padrones, comprobantes), and specifies the source platform (datosabiertos.gob.pe). It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating how to use the output with sunat_obtener_dataset.

  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 tells when to use the tool (to list datasets) and directs the agent to use the 'dataset' field with sunat_obtener_dataset for resources. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or compare with siblings beyond the next step.

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

• sunat_obtener_datasetA
  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 full burden. It accurately describes the return structure (description and list of resources) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

  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 the main purpose, no unnecessary words. 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value and how the results link to sibling tools. Lack of annotations is not compensated, but the description is sufficient for correct usage.

  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 explaining where to obtain the slug ('obtenido de sunat_listar_datasets'), which complements the schema's description.

  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 returns the description and list of resources for a SUNAT dataset identified by slug. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning how resource IDs are used with 'sunat_obtener_recurso' or 'sunat_previsualizar_recurso'.

  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 implies usage context: the slug comes from 'sunat_listar_datasets' and the returned resource IDs are used with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives nor provide any exclusions.

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

• sunat_obtener_recursoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It adds important behavioral context by noting that the 'formato' field is unreliable and that CSV files may actually be ZIP archives. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but the added detail is valuable.

  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, no filler, efficiently conveys all necessary information. Every word has purpose.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description summarizes the return value (metadata and download URL). It could list example fields, but for a single-parameter retrieval tool, the given detail is sufficient.

  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% and the description does not add new information beyond what the parameter description already says ('Id del recurso, obtenido de sunat_obtener_dataset'). Baseline score applies.

  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: given a resource id, it returns full metadata and the download URL. It explicitly references its predecessor (sunat_obtener_dataset), distinguishing it from siblings that handle datasets or previews.

  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 indicates that the input comes from sunat_obtener_dataset, providing clear context. It includes a warning about the unreliable 'formato' field, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

• sunat_previsualizar_recursoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it only downloads the beginning, handles CSV or CSV-in-zip, and returns header plus first rows. This is transparent about read-only behavior and file handling.

  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 concise sentences with all essential information front-loaded. No wasted words. Every sentence 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?

  Given no output schema, description could specify output format more explicitly, but it clearly states returns header and first rows. It adequately covers the tool's behavior for a preview operation.

  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 on both parameters. The description reinforces the source of 'resource_id' but adds no new details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.

  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 it previews rows of a SUNAT resource, downloading only the beginning. It specifies the verb 'previsualizar' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it avoids full download. This is a specific verb+resource combination.

  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?

  Description explicitly instructs to use the 'id' from 'sunat_obtener_dataset', providing context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the instruction to use a specific sibling's output is clear guidance.

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