crear_circuito

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder behavioral disclosure. It notes the historical default behavior of bus_fuente and the expectation for professional flows, which adds useful context about defaults and intended use. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether creation is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or side effects, leaving important behavioral gaps for a creation/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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, efficient and free of waste. It could be strengthened with a clause naming the intended stage or alternatives, but the current text is appropriately sized.

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 creation tool with no annotations, four parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers bus_fuente behavior but leaves the purpose of nombre, kv_base, and frecuencia implicit and omits side effects or prerequisite workspace state. An output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the parameter and behavioral gaps remain.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults without semantic meaning. The description adds meaning for bus_fuente (explicit source bus, default 'sourcebus') but says nothing about nombre, kv_base, or frecuencia semantics. It compensates partially but leaves three of four parameters undocumented in prose, matching a baseline 3.

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+resource ('Crea un circuito nuevo') and highlights the explicit source bus parameterization, which distinguishes it from implicit-default creation paths. However, it does not contrast directly with the many sibling creation tools (agregar_linea, agregar_transformador, etc.), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus adding elements to an existing circuit. Clear but not sibling-differentiating at the highest level.

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?

Implies it should be used for creating circuits and mentions that professional flows must declare bus_fuente explicitly, but gives no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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