Resolve conductor grouping for ampacity calculations and return a traceable factor_p3 when available, using element name, grouped circuits, and layout ID.
Resuelve agrupamiento y, si existe valor, devuelve factor_p3 trazable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disposicion_id | Yes | ||
| nombre_elemento | Yes | ||
| circuitos_agrupados | Yes | ||
| permitir_dataset_secundario | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one behavioral trait – that factor_p3 may not exist and the result is 'trazable' – but says nothing about permissions, side effects, failure modes, or what data source the grouping factor is resolved against.
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 efficient sentence with the resolution action front-loaded ahead of the return behavior. No padding, though the brevity comes partly from omission rather than discipline.
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 annotations mean the description must compensate, yet it leaves 4 undocumented parameters, no usage routing, and no failure semantics. The one clause about factor_p3 being conditionally returned is the only gap it fills.
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 4 parameters, so the schema provides no meanings to lean on. The description names none of them; circuito count, element name, disposition id, and especially 'permitir_dataset_secundario' are left entirely for the agent to guess.
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 verb ('resuelve') and a resource ('agrupamiento') plus the returned field ('factor_p3'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like resolver_factor_normativo_ampacidad or resolver_base_normativa_ampacidad, so the agent cannot tell which resolver to use.
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 indication of when this resolver applies versus the sibling resolvers, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which the result is absent. The only conditional hint ('si existe valor') describes output, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.