Fetch the next batch of facts from an archive in order, absorbing each block to continue until all facts are transferred and the source is empty.
Consegna in ordine i prossimi fatti del serbatoio, per svuotarlo tutto. Ripeti finché exhausted=true, assorbendo dopo ogni blocco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal the key protocol: facts are delivered in order, repeated calls lead to exhausted=true, and each block must be absorbed. This conveys drain/consumption semantics beyond a simple 'get next' operation.
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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and then gives the necessary loop and absorption instruction, so every phrase 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 description provides the essential loop and the exhausted flag, which is valuable given no output schema. However, it omits what file refers to and what the response contains beyond exhausted, leaving a noticeable gap for a no-output-schema tool with 0% parameter coverage.
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?
Both parameters (file and limit) have no schema descriptions (0% coverage), and the description never mentions either parameter. The word 'blocco' hints at a batch-size concept that likely maps to limit, but the meaning of file is left entirely to inference.
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 concrete verb and resource: 'Consegna in ordine i prossimi fatti del serbatoio' and clarifies the draining purpose. The word 'prossimi' plus 'in ordine' distinguishes it from siblings like search, state, and absorb tools.
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 second sentence gives explicit operational guidance: repeat until exhausted=true and absorb after each block. It tells the agent when to stop and what action accompanies each call, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.