Retrieve a specific argument string from a line at a zero-based index. Use it to parse GSA COM input lines and extract individual arguments by position.
Return argument string at zero-based index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the index is zero-based and that the return value is a string, but it omits any error behavior, the meaning of the required 'line' parameter, and any other operational context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple accessor, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing context elsewhere.
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 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a required 'line' parameter, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description still fails to explain what 'line' represents or how the two parameters interact.
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% and the description only partially compensates. It clarifies that the 'index' parameter is zero-based, but it completely omits the required 'line' parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return argument string at zero-based index.' It is clear what operation is performed, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling gsa_num_arg, which likely relates to argument counts.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternative tools such as gsa_num_arg. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.