Generate a reproducible P12 dossier from explicit operational scenarios to document OpenDSS distribution-network power-flow and contingency studies.
Genera dossier P12 reproducible desde escenarios explícitos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | Yes | ||
| directorio_salida | No | mcp_electrico_scenario_dossier | |
| paquete_escenarios | 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the dossier is reproducible, which is a useful trait, but it omits file-system effects, output location behavior, error handling, overwrite semantics, and required authorization or workspace state.
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 wasted words, so it is structurally clean. However, its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than helpful conciseness for a tool that accepts nested scenario and manifest objects.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, nested required inputs, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the one-line description is not remotely complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain what a reproducible P12 dossier contains or how the explicit scenarios are 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage across three parameters, including two required nested objects (manifest, paquete_escenarios) and one optional output directory. The description only vaguely references 'escenarios explícitos' and does not explain any parameter's expected shape, role, or relationship to the dossier output.
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 (Genera) and resource (dossier P12 reproducible) and names the input source (escenarios explícitos). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling dossier-generation tools such as generar_dossier_piloto_real or generar_dossier_arranque_motores, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are stated beyond a vague reference to explicit scenarios, and there is no indication of when not to use it. The description does not route the agent among the many related scenario and dossier tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.