ejecutar_arranque_motores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only supplies the word 'aislados' (isolated), hinting at sandboxing without explaining what that isolation means. It does not state whether the run mutates the workspace, writes artifacts, requires a prepared circuit, or has limits on concurrency or duration.

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?

It is one short sentence, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the sentence omits the resource being studied and the mechanism, so nothing is front-loaded for the agent to act on.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and one opaque nested parameter leave every question unanswered: what inputs the manifest needs, what the tool returns, and how it relates to the validation/dossier siblings in the motor-start family. The definition is not sufficient to call this tool correctly.

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% for the single required 'manifest' parameter, which is an open nested object (additionalProperties: true) with no documented fields. The description adds nothing about what the manifest must contain, so an agent cannot construct a valid call from either the schema or the 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 says it runs 'explicit static studies in isolated OpenDSS contexts', but the tool is named ejecutar_arranque_motores (motor starting), and the two do not line up — motor starting is not a 'static study'. It also fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like ejecutar_perfiles_arranque_motores and ejecutar_secuencias_arranque_motores, which are described by name in a nearly identical space.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. With several sibling tools covering motor-start profiles and sequences, the agent has no textual basis for choosing this one over them.

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