Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• loteC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions parallel execution and distribution, but omits critical details: whether it's blocking, error handling, or side effects. The agent lacks information on tool behavior beyond parallel execution.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by separating purpose and behavior into clear points. No waste, but it's underspecified.

  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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return values, required configurations, or how to use parameters. The tool is complex (batch execution) but documented minimally.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only references 'tareas' implicitly, not 'tipo' or 'contexto'. The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean from the description.

  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: delegating multiple independent tasks to run in parallel across cluster nodes. The verb 'Delega' and resource 'VARIAS tareas independientes' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the batch nature is evident.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'procesar' or 'revisar_archivos'. The description implies it's for independent tasks but doesn't specify prerequisites or conditions.

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

• procesarB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions files are read locally and tasks are bounded, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification), authorization needs, error behavior, or whether the tool returns results or just triggers processing.

  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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and provides concrete examples. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points for use cases. No filler sentences.

  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 lack of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, error handling, and does not fully explain all parameters. The tool's processing nature requires more context for safe use.

  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 description explains that 'archivos' should be file paths instead of content, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the 'tipo' enum (codigo vs texto), 'contexto', or the required 'instruccion' in enough detail. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates.

  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 delegates a bounded processing task to the local cluster, and lists specific use cases (boilerplate, docstrings, format conversions, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings implicitly by focusing on local, single-task processing.

  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 advises to pass file paths instead of content, and mentions '0 tokens cloud' for cost awareness. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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

• revisar_archivosB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions parallelism and that files are not added to context, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details on authorization needs, side effects, or return format, leaving gaps 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise at two sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the purpose and key behavioral notes. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or explicit separations.

  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 absence of an output schema and only two parameters with no description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how findings are structured, or how 'enfoque' affects behavior. Essential context for a code review tool is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names ('rutas' and 'enfoque'). The 'enfoque' parameter is not explained, and 'rutas' lacks format or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 it is a first pass of code review on file paths, running in parallel per file, and returning only findings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'estado' or 'procesar' by specifying its role as an initial review step.

  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 as a first step ('primera pasada') and that files do not pass through context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide scenarios to avoid. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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

• resumir_archivosA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the burden. It discloses parallel execution and that files do not pass through the context, which is useful. However, it omits many behavioral traits: required permissions, file size limits, supported formats, whether it's read-only (likely safe), or error behavior. The disclosure is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

  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?

  A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints ('en paralelo', 'sin que pasen por tu contexto'). Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy or filler.

  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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core function, parallelism, and context behavior. It lacks details on return format, error handling, and file type support, but these are secondary for a summarizing tool. The description is mostly complete for its complexity.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It relates 'rutas' to file paths and 'instruccion' to the extraction instruction, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify path format (absolute/relative) or allowed instruction formats (natural language vs. specific syntax). The description provides a baseline but not full compensation.

  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: summarizing or extracting information from files by path, emphasizing parallel execution and not passing files through the context. This differentiates it from siblings like 'procesar' (full processing) and 'revisar_archivos' (review). The verb 'Resume o extrae' and resource 'archivos por ruta' 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when needing to extract info without full file loading ('sin que pasen por tu contexto'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., when full file content analysis is needed) or mention alternative siblings. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• estadoA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (health and tokens saved) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 with no filler. Front-loaded with purpose. 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies return values (health and tokens). However, it could clarify what 'salud del cluster' encompasses or token units. Still, it meets the minimal bar for a simple query tool.

  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?

  Zero parameters means the schema is fully covered (100%). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate as none exist.

  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 cluster health and total cloud tokens saved. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like 'lote' (batch) and 'procesar' (process) which handle file 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. Given sibling tools exist (lote, procesar, etc.), the description should provide context on usage boundaries or comparison.

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