ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_2ph_ground

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral detail: pandapower is used only for Z1/Z0, the fault is solved by the audited MCP symmetrical-components solver, ikss_ka is internal-use and ikss_contractual stays False. However it does not clarify side effects of 'registra V4' (persistence/state mutation) or any preconditions, leaving key behavioral aspects opaque.

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?

Reasonably sized at two sentences, but front-loads opaque internal jargon ('extensión operacional 2F-T MAX/MIN', 'registra V4') that conveys little to a new caller, and the useful method/output detail is buried in the second half.

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?

An execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three completely undocumented parameters. The description touches on output meaning (ikss_ka, ikss_contractual) and the solver, but omits parameter guidance, preconditions, and the effect of 'registra V4', leaving it under-complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description never mentions bus_falla, lv_tol_percent, or line_endtemp_degree_c. Zero semantic guidance is added for any of the three inputs, so the description does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 (Ejecuta) and resource (2F-T two-phase-to-ground IEC 60909 short circuit) and describes the underlying method (symmetrical components solver for the b-c-ground fault). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the 3ph/2ph/1ph_ground siblings via '2F-T' but never names them, so an agent must infer the variant.

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?

No statement of when to choose this variant over ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_3ph, _2ph, _1ph_ground, or plain ejecutar_cortocircuito. The context is only implied by the fault type in the name; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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