Calculate arc flash incident energy and boundaries from voltage, fault current, clearing time, and working distance to assess electrical safety.
Alias compatible con la API v0.5.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| voltaje_kv | Yes | ||
| tiempo_despeje_s | Yes | ||
| corriente_falla_ka | Yes | ||
| distancia_trabajo_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and discloses nothing. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what standards or formulas it applies (IEEE 1584 vs. Lee), what units or assumptions govern the computation, or anything about permissions or side effects.
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 single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness; it omits every fact an agent needs. There is no front-loading problem because there is essentially no content to order.
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 four-parameter engineering computation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It must at minimum state the calculation performed, the unit conventions, and how it relates to the sibling arc flash tool, none of which is present.
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?
Four parameters (three required) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Field titles like 'Voltaje Kv' and 'Tiempo Despeje S' are self-evident, but critical semantics such as accepted ranges, the meaning of the 455 mm default, or whether distance is working distance or arc gap are absent from both schema and description.
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 states only that this is a v0.5-compatible alias and never says what the tool does. The name suggests arc flash calculation, but the text adds no verb, no resource, and no differentiation from the obvious sibling estimar_arc_flash_lee. It is a near-tautology that leaves the actual purpose to inference from the tool name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling supersedes it. Given that estimar_arc_flash_lee appears to be the canonical arc flash estimator, the description should explicitly explain the alias relationship and selection rule; it does neither.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.