obtener_fragmento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key 200-line limit and the 'literal lines' behavior, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens when the requested range exceeds the file or the cap, nor any error behavior.

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 conveys the action, object, and a critical constraint with no wasted words. Every element 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 schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and line limit, yet it omits details about return formatting, handling of oversized ranges, or errors, leaving the agent to infer these behaviors.

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 coverage is 100%: all three parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (e.g., inclusivity of line_fin, 1-based line_inicio). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('líneas literales de un fichero indexado'), making the core function clear. It is reasonably distinct from sibling search/reference tools, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions beyond the inherent implication that it retrieves literal file lines.

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