leer_archivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that reads are truncated to a first-or-last N-line window rather than returning the whole file. It does not mention behavior on a missing/unreadable path, encoding, or size limits, so it is additive but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key scoping detail in parentheses. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity shifts work into the undocumented parameters rather than being optimally sized for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. Still, for a tool with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a crowded sibling set (ver_logs, ejecutar_comando), the description lacks the routing guidance and parameter semantics an agent needs to call it correctly the first time.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, and it does map conceptually onto all four parameters (servidor, ruta, lineas as N, desde_el_final as first-vs-last). However, it adds nothing about path format (absolute vs relative), what a valid servidor identifier looks like, or that lineas affects how desde_el_final behaves, leaving gaps the agent must infer.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Lee un archivo de texto del servidor") plus a clear scope qualifier ("las primeras o últimas N líneas"), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings such as ver_logs, which is the closest ambiguity in the set.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing tells the agent to prefer leer_archivo over ver_logs or ejecutar_comando for inspecting remote content. The only usable cue is the implicit read-only nature of the operation, which the annotations already state.

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