Assess conductor thermal withstand during short circuits by verifying I²t <= k²S² with traceable k, cross-section, and clearing time.
Evalúa I²t <= k²S² con k, sección y tiempo explícitos/trazables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elemento | Yes | ||
| fuente_k | Yes | ||
| seccion_mm2 | Yes | ||
| fuente_tiempo | Yes | ||
| fuente_seccion | No | ||
| tiempo_despeje_s | Yes | ||
| corriente_falla_ka | Yes | ||
| k_a_sqrt_s_per_mm2 | Yes |
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 disclosure burden. It says nothing about side effects, whether results are persisted, whether it requires prior configuration (fuente_k/fuente_tiempo suggest external sourcing), or how failures are reported. Only the traceability expectation of inputs is hinted at.
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?
A single compact sentence with the criterion front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on cryptic for a tool with eight arguments.
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 an 8-parameter, 7-required computation tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, one formula sentence is insufficient. An agent gets no information about the traceability sources, the elemento reference, or the shape of the result.
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% across 8 parameters. The description names the formula variables k, sección and tiempo, loosely covering three of the required inputs and implying I (corriente_falla_ka), but leaves elemento, fuente_k, fuente_tiempo and fuente_seccion unexplained and gives no units or formats beyond what the field names suggest.
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 ('Evalúa') and the exact normative criterion (I²t <= k²S²) applied to conductor thermal withstand, so an agent can recognize it as a verification tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like evaluar_capacidad_corte_p5c or evaluar_tiempo_despeje_p5d, relying on the p5c suffix for family grouping.
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 clause 'con k, sección y tiempo explícitos/trazables' implies a prerequisite: the caller must supply traceable k, section and time values. There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling evaluation tools, nor any exclusion or ordering guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.