analizar_caida_tension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context: the 3% default is not a universal normative requirement, OpenDSS resolves voltages, and the MCP derives the bus1-to-bus2 comparison over the current revision. It still does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the result contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a short caveat about the default. There is no redundant text, though the second paragraph is a little abstract.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the calculation source and a default caveat. It remains incomplete because it neither explains the return value nor routes the agent relative to the many sibling power-flow and analysis tools.

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 for the single parameter limite_pct. It identifies the parameter as a user-configurable threshold and explicitly gives the 3% default, but it does not state accepted ranges, units beyond percent, or how the limit affects the analysis.

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 and resource: 'Analiza ΔV por alimentador', so an agent knows it computes voltage drop per feeder. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools such as ejecutar_flujo_potencia or analizar_flujo_operacion, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the large sibling set. The description explains the default limit's role, but that is behavioral context, not selection guidance.

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