Compare fault current against a device's Icu or breaking capacity without replacing ratings. Use it to verify short-circuit withstand in OpenDSS distribution studies.
Compara la falla con Icu o poder de corte sin sustituir ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escenario | No | ||
| tipo_falla | No | ||
| dispositivo | Yes | ||
| fuente_corriente | Yes | ||
| corriente_falla_ka | Yes | ||
| tension_operacion_kv | 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 the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — that it compares without substituting ratings — but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or persists data, or what side effects it may have.
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 appropriately sized for its content, though the content itself is sparse.
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 six-parameter evaluation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return values, expected behavior on failure, or how the required inputs should be supplied.
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 none of the six parameters are documented. The description vaguely references 'falla' and 'Icu o poder de corte', which partially maps to corriente_falla_ka and device ratings, but leaves tension_operacion_kv, fuente_corriente, escenario, and tipo_falla unexplained.
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 and resource: comparing the fault current against Icu or breaking capacity. This clearly describes the evaluation action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related P5C/P5A siblings such as evaluar_soportabilidad_termica_conductor_p5c or obtener_referencias_proteccion_p5c.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only implicit constraint is 'sin sustituir ratings', which notes a limitation but does not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate versus other evaluation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.