Estimate educational arc flash incident energy using the Lee method with voltage, fault current, clearing time, and working distance.
Estimación educativa de energía incidente mediante el método de Lee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| voltaje_kv | Yes | ||
| tiempo_despeje_s | Yes | ||
| corriente_falla_ka | Yes | ||
| distancia_trabajo_mm | No |
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 the full burden of disclosure. It says the estimation is educational and uses the Lee method, but omits assumptions, limitations, safety caveats, required input conventions, and whether the result is screening-level or detailed. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a computational 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently compact, though its extreme brevity contributes to the missing context rather than being a model of concise completeness.
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 four-parameter calculation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It names the method and educational scope, but an agent still lacks enough context to select and invoke the tool reliably.
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 any of the four parameters. Although parameter names hint at units such as kV, kA, and mm, the definition adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent to infer how each input is used in the Lee method.
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 specific verb and resource: estimating incident energy, and names the Lee method. This distinguishes it from generic arc flash tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool calcular_arc_flash or other arc flash methods.
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?
The word 'educativa' implies an educational rather than design-grade use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus calcular_arc_flash or other alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.