Apply explicit zero-sequence R0/X0 and optional C0 parameters to a three-phase line so OpenDSS can model unbalanced and ground-fault conditions correctly.
Aplica R0/X0 y opcional C0 explícitos a una Line trifásica.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| c0_nf_km | No | ||
| r0_ohm_km | Yes | ||
| x0_ohm_km | Yes | ||
| fuente_url | No | ||
| nombre_elemento | Yes | ||
| fuente_referencia | 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 must disclose behavior, but it only states that it applies parameters. It omits whether the operation overwrites existing values, requires permissions or a pre-existing element, and what side effects occur.
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 redundant wording. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It identifies the core action but omits usage context, many parameter meanings, and behavioral details.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only maps R0, X0, and optional C0 to their corresponding parameters. It says nothing about nombre_elemento, fuente_url, or fuente_referencia, leaving half the inputs unexplained.
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 ('Aplica') and resource ('Line trifásica'), naming the zero-sequence parameters R0/X0 and optional C0. The reference to 'Line' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools for sources and transformers (definir_secuencia_cero_fuente/transformador).
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?
Provides no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the line must already exist), or conditions under which zero-sequence data should be set. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.