Reads up to 12 pages of a loaded document to transcribe a cedulario or analyze an exam or rubric. Use it to extract content for study or verification.
Lee las páginas de un documento cargado (hasta ~12 por llamada). Úsala para transcribir un cedulario o analizar un examen o pauta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| desde | No | ||
| hasta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Lee' and discloses the page limit ('hasta ~12 por llamada'), which is important behavioral context. It does not mention error handling or response format, but for a benign read tool the key behavior is covered.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary action and limit are front-loaded, followed by selection criteria for use. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain enough to call it correctly. It provides the core purpose and use cases, but omits parameter details and what the return value looks like. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a reasonable but not fully complete definition.
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 does not explain the parameters `id`, `desde`, or `hasta` beyond the vague word 'páginas'. It mentions a page limit but does not map it to the range parameters, leaving an agent to guess their meaning.
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 action ('Lee las páginas de un documento cargado') on a clear resource, and adds a practical constraint ('hasta ~12 por llamada'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the phrase 'documento cargado' distinguishes it from viewing materials or articles.
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?
It gives explicit use cases: 'Úsala para transcribir un cedulario o analizar un examen o pauta.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.