ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_3ph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: no automatic dispatch, no cross-check, MIN scenario requires explicit endtemp_degree per line, ip/Ith calculation depends on declared topology, clearing time, and kappa method, registration in V5/V4, and professional_emission remains false. It still omits side effects, error handling, and whether it mutates the workspace beyond registration.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by relevant constraints in three compact sentences. There is little wasted text, though some domain jargon is used without unpacking.

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 complex six-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and several behavioral constraints well. However, it does not describe the return values or result structure, which is a notable gap when no output schema exists, and it provides no explicit routing to alternative short-circuit tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds concrete meaning for several parameters by linking endtemp_degree to line_endtemp_degree_c in MIN scenarios, and tying ip/Ith calculation to topology, tk_s (tiempo de despeje), and kappa_method. It does not explain bus_falla or fully define parameter formats, but it substantially improves on the bare 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), standard (IEC 60909), fault type (3F), and operating modes (MAX/MIN) with pandapower experimental. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_2ph and 1ph_ground.

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?

Implies usage through 'explícitamente' and the note that there is no automatic dispatch or cross-check, which tells the agent when not to expect those behaviors. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states the precise conditions under which this tool should be chosen over sibling short-circuit tools.

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