resolver_mazo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior: querying Scryfall and returning authoritative oracle text, and warns against citing from memory. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only resolver the key behavioral trait is well explained.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives formats and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 an output schema, so return value details are not needed. The description provides input format details and a strong usage rule. It is moderately complete, though it does not mention potential errors or network dependencies, which would be useful but not essential.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'lista' parameter, including supported formats and example line format. The 'nombre' parameter is only implied by its default value 'Mazo', but that is low-risk and easily inferred.

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 resolves a deck list against Scryfall and returns the real oracle text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its unique function of resolving card text, not analyzing synergies or rendering guides.

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 explicitly instructs to always use this tool before claiming anything about what a card does, and lists accepted input formats. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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