Obtener el texto de un documento por fuente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the text is never returned whole ('nunca entero'), respects a character limit with a specific range (200–40.000, default 8000), and reports 'total/mostrado/omitido'. It also explains disk-writing behaviors for entero and ruta_destino, including that ruta_destino downloads without returning the text—highly transparent for a tool with 17 parameters.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but each sentence carries essential information about sources, modes, limits, or alternatives. It is not overly verbose given the complexity of the tool, though breaking it into bullets would improve scanability. No filler words are present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: source enumeration, parameter requirements, chunking behavior, character limits, summary reporting, disk-writing options, and sibling alternatives. It even clarifies subtle behaviors like ruta_destino not returning text, filling the gaps left by the missing annotations and output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is high (94%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each source to its required parameters (e.g., 'suprema' requires ruta + sala, 'consejo' uses token) and explaining the relationship between entero/ruta_destino and the returned text. While some parameter details are repeated, the cross-parameter context is genuinely helpful, justifying a 4.

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?

The description opens with a specific action: 'Devuelve el texto (troceado, nunca entero) de un documento' and then enumerates the seven sources with their exact parameters (e.g., 'gestor' by id, 'corte' by ruta o cita). It also names alternatives like buscar_en_texto, articulo/seccion, and historial, which distinguishes this tool from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Usa buscar_en_texto para encontrar un término dentro del documento, articulo/seccion para una parte puntual, o historial (solo gestor) para los cambios anotados.' It also clarifies when to use entero=true and ruta_destino, giving clear context for when each option is appropriate.

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