Evaluate study readiness by separating data completeness, backend suitability, and module availability before running OpenDSS simulations.
Separa completitud de datos, aptitud del backend y disponibilidad del módulo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| norma | No | ||
| estudio | Yes | ||
| tipo_falla | No | ||
| permitir_experimental | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether this reads or mutates state, what permissions it needs, or what the result contains. The mention of separating three dimensions hints at returned signals, but this is vague and unconfirmed by an output schema.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is neither front-loaded with a purpose nor structured to route usage, which limits its utility.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate: it conveys neither purpose, usage, parameter meaning, nor side effects.
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% with 4 parameters (estudio required; norma, tipo_falla, permitir_experimental optional), and the description explains none of them. The concept of 'estudio' is central to the tool but undefined here, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning from bare titles.
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 decomposition ('separates data completeness, backend readiness, and module availability') but never says what the tool actually does as a verb+resource. It reads as an output-shape note rather than a purpose statement, and gives no basis to distinguish it from siblings like evaluar_preparacion_proteccion_p5a or verificar_integridad_dossier_escenarios.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. With ~100 siblings performing similar 'evaluar/verificar' roles, the agent has nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.