Execute only the switching operations and states declared in a P12 scenario package to simulate operational scenarios in OpenDSS distribution networks.
Ejecuta únicamente las maniobras/estados declarados en el paquete P12.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | Yes | ||
| paquete_escenarios | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states execution is limited to declared maneuvers/states, but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, error behavior, and return format, leaving substantial gaps for a mutation-like tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is concise. However, it is too terse for a tool with two required nested-object parameters and no annotations, leaving critical gaps rather than achieving appropriate brevity.
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?
Given the tool has two required nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the manifest, expected input shape, execution outcomes, or side effects, so an agent cannot safely invoke it.
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 only obliquely references 'paquete P12' (likely paquete_escenarios) and never mentions the required 'manifest' parameter, providing no structural or semantic detail for either nested object.
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 action (Ejecuta) and scope (únicamente las maniobras/estados declarados en el paquete P12), giving a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like validar_escenarios_operativos or generar_dossier_escenarios_operativos, but the scope limitation is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus validar_escenarios_operativos, generar_dossier_escenarios_operativos, or other ejecutar_* siblings. Only implies it runs the declared scenarios, with no when-not or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.