definir_secuencia_cero_fuente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral fact: the values are taken as explicit inputs and Z0 is not derived from Scc3, which affects correctness of the zero-sequence study. It says nothing about mutation effects on the scenario/workspace, persistence, or how min/max bounds interact.

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 clause with zero filler; the negative constraint is tacked on with a semicolon and reads efficiently. It is terse to the point of slight under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits which scenario selector applies, what the source URL/reference represent, and how the optional min/max values are interpreted.

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% across 6 parameters. The description maps only to the R0/X0 concept and leaves the min/max pair semantics, 'fuente_url' and 'fuente_referencia' entirely unexplained; an agent cannot tell what the source URL/reference are for or how the optional bounds are used.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Define R0/X0 explícitos de la red aguas arriba por escenario'. The word 'fuente' plus 'aguas arriba' implicitly separates it from the sibling tools definir_secuencia_cero_linea and definir_secuencia_cero_transformador, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'por escenario' implies the context in which the tool applies, and 'no deriva Z0 desde Scc3' tells the agent this is not the path for Scc3-derived zero sequence. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing is given.

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