Adds a backup generator to an OpenDSS circuit by specifying name, bus, kW, and kV, enabling modeling of standby power or distributed generation in network simulations.
Agrega un grupo electrógeno/modelo Generator de OpenDSS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kv | Yes | ||
| kw | Yes | ||
| bus | Yes | ||
| fases | No | ||
| nombre | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a mutation ('Agrega') and identifies the model type (OpenDSS Generator), but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or whether an existing circuit is required. Thin for a mutation tool.
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 with no filler. The phrasing 'grupo electrógeno/modelo Generator' is slightly redundant, but overall it is appropriately sized and wastes no words.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. While an output schema exists (relieving the need to describe returns), the input semantics, prerequisites, and behavioral expectations are missing.
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% for 5 parameters. The description provides no explanation of what 'nombre', 'bus', 'kw', 'kv', or 'fases' represent or how they should be supplied. It fails to compensate for the total absence of schema descriptions.
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?
States a specific verb ('Agrega') and resource ('grupo electrógeno/modelo Generator de OpenDSS'), making it distinguishable from sibling 'agregar_*' tools that target lines, transformers, or loads. It does not spell out that it's a backup generator or its role in the circuit, so it's clear but not richly differentiated.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The implied context is that it's part of a model-building sequence, but nothing directs the agent to use it over other element-adding tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.