ejecutar_cortocircuito

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect: FaultStudy switches the OpenDSS solution mode, the fault result is retained as a study, and the viewer is restored to normal power flow to avoid mixing voltages. That is useful state-change context, but it omits permissions, failure behavior, and any notes on the input it requires.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause ("Calcula Isc y restaura después una solución de flujo"), followed by a compact rationale for the restore behavior. No sentence is wasted, though the two-sentence explanation of the mode switch is slightly more verbose than strictly needed.

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 study-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more. It explains the post-execution state handling well but leaves the required bus argument and the nature of the returned fault result entirely unexplained.

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% for the single required parameter bus_falla, and the description never explains what that bus is, its expected format, or how it is resolved within the workspace. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource ("Calcula Isc ... para el workspace"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, the sibling set contains four explicit variants (ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_3ph, _2ph, _1ph_ground, _2ph_ground), and the description never says which fault type or standard this generic entry point covers. An agent cannot tell it apart from those siblings, so the purpose is vague in context.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and the alternative short-circuit tools in the sibling list are not mentioned. The text describes what happens after execution but never states the condition that should select this tool over the IEC 60909 variants.

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