Información del servidor Sifende

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'No hace llamadas a la red' largely restates openWorldHint=false. The description does add useful context about what state is exposed (write-tools-enabled flag, environment, version), but no auth, caching, or latency behavior is disclosed, so it stays at minimum-viable-plus.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then the usage trigger, then the local-execution guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description fully carries the burden and does so: it names the three values returned (environment, write-enabled, version) and the pre-issuance use case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose semantics need explaining. Nothing in the description is required to compensate for a schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Muestra') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the connected environment (Sandbox/SIFEN test/production), whether write tools are enabled, and the version. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling consultar_* domain-query tools, which return taxpayer/document data rather than server metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Llamala antes de emitir para saber si el documento tendrá validez fiscal', which tells the agent when to call it and why. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative tool, but the pre-issuance ordering is unambiguous.

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