ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_1ph_ground

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: no automatic dispatch, no cross-check, Sk''/ip/Ith are not derived or promoted for 1F-T in P4C11C, and professional emission stays disabled. These are non-obvious constraints an agent could not guess. It stops short of describing failure modes or result delivery, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a tight block of constraints; no filler sentences. Slightly dense but every line earns its place.

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 zero-sequence-dependent IEC 60909 study tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the critical preconditions and explicitly lists what is NOT computed. The main gap is undocumented parameters, which prevents a 5.

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% with 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains line_endtemp_degree_c's role (required for MIN, per line) but says nothing about bus_falla or lv_tol_percent, and gives no format/units hints. Partial compensation only.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Ejecuta IEC 60909 1F-T MAX/MIN con Z0 explícita') and adds a concrete side effect ('registra V4'). The '1F-T' qualifier cleanly separates it from the parallel siblings ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_3ph, _2ph and _2ph_ground without needing to open any schema.

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?

States prerequisites clearly: zero-sequence of source, lines and transformers must be declared and projectable, and MIN requires explicit 'endtemp_degree' per line. It also rules out automatic dispatch and cross-check. It does not, however, explicitly point to the definir_secuencia_cero_* siblings as the setup step, leaving that inference to the agent.

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