resolver_cve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses validation ('Comprueba que la página exista'), the resolver's confusion between extraordinary and ordinary bulletins, the BOME-AX fallback behavior, the BOME-PX PDF-return behavior with a warning, and the strict rule about not accepting cross-type redirects.

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 first sentence front-loads the primary function, and the following sentences add important edge-case behavior without fluff. The description is dense and somewhat long, but every sentence contributes operational value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, validation, fallback behavior, and return behavior. The main gaps are unspecified error behavior when a page does not exist and the exact shape of the returned URL or warning.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single 'cve' parameter. It does so by enumerating accepted CVE types and referencing BOME-A and BOME-P forms, which gives meaningful semantic guidance. However, it does not specify the exact accepted string format for the parameter, such as whether a prefix is required.

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 ('URL canónica'), and clearly scopes the tool to any CVE (boletín, artículo, sumario o página). It also states the practical purpose ('Útil para citar o para saber a qué boletín y artículo pertenece'), which differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch or list content.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: citing a CVE or resolving an article/page CVE to its bulletin and article. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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