Extraer Lineas y grupos de Inventarios

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds that it generates a .xlsx file and returns parsed first rows, and notes the clave is never returned in responses, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention rate limits or file cleanup, but the added detail is sufficient given annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output. It conveys the essential behavior without redundancy, making efficient use of space.

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 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description need not explain all return values. It clarifies the main artifact (.xlsx), what is returned (parsed first rows), and the default behaviors via schema. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description saying 'devuelve sus primeras filas ya parseadas', which is adequate for a read-only extraction tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (e.g., how the tool returns file content and that clave is never revealed), and the schema's parameter descriptions are detailed with examples (e.g., lineaGrupoInicial '0010001'). However, the description itself does not elaborate on individual parameters, relying on the schema; still, the combined effect is strong, so a 4 is justified for the added file-handling context.

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 clearly states the tool extracts inventory lines and groups using SIIGO Pyme's GETLIN function, and produces a parsed .xlsx file. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_getinv (inventories) and siigo_getmov (movements).

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 implies when to use this tool (for inventory lines/groups extraction) and the schema hints at alternatives (siigo_list_companies for companies). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to direct siblings like siigo_getinv, though the function name GETLIN differentiates it.

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