Returns the fail-closed data admission contract for the real pilot, defining required inputs and rejection rules for OpenDSS modeling.
Devuelve el contrato fail-closed de ingreso de datos del piloto real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. 'Fail-closed' is the only behavioral signal, and it is undefined jargon that an agent cannot act on without domain context. Nothing is said about determinism, side effects, or what the contract actually asserts.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Devuelve'. Appropriately sized but almost too terse to be useful.
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?
No output schema and no description of what the returned contract looks like, how to interpret it, or what 'fail-closed' means operationally. For a zero-arg tool whose entire value is the content of its return value, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to use it correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to specify and the description does not introduce confusion about inputs.
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 is a near-restatement of the tool name: 'obtener_contrato...admision_real' becomes 'Devuelve el contrato...del piloto real'. It does not explain what the contract contains or how it differs from siblings like obtener_contrato_p8f1_piloto_real or obtener_contrato_p8f2_integridad_dossier, which share the identical 'obtener_contrato_*' pattern.
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 on when to call this versus evaluar_admision_piloto_real or the other obtener_contrato_* siblings. The word 'fail-closed' hints at a safety/validation purpose but the description never states the trigger condition or what the caller is expected to do with the result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.