evaluar_preparacion_proteccion_p5a

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the evaluation is read-only or mutating, what 'conserva el contrato P5A' implies behaviorally, what inputs must pre-exist, or what the result contains. The phrase 'conserva el contrato' is undefined jargon rather than usable behavioral context.

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 short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The one sentence contains two opaque clauses ('capacidad de corte', 'contrato P5A') without establishing what the tool returns or requires.

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 domain-specific evaluation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what a successful evaluation means, what the 'contract' is, or how this step relates to the surrounding P5a workflow (definir_dispositivo_proteccion_p5a, obtener_estado_protecciones_p5a, evaluar_cierre_p5).

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?

The single required parameter 'dispositivo' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its expected format, identifier scheme, or whether it must reference a device already defined via definir_dispositivo_proteccion_p5a. With one undocumented parameter, the definition fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 largely restates the tool name ('evalúa... protección P5A') with a vague addendum ('datos/capacidad de corte'). It does not say what is actually being evaluated (breaking capacity adequacy vs. data readiness) nor distinguish it from siblings like evaluar_capacidad_corte_p5c or vincular_curva_proteccion_p5a. An agent cannot confidently tell this apart from adjacent P5 tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. In a catalogue with dozens of P5x evaluation tools, this omission makes correct selection essentially guesswork.

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