run_n_minus_1_line_short_circuit

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions opening lines one at a time but does not specify whether lines are restored after measurement, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements. The behavior is partially described but lacks crucial details.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and avoids unnecessary words, making it very concise.

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 complexity of an n-minus-1 line contingency analysis and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that the tool iterates over all lines, how results are returned, or the significance of the export path. Important contextual details are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the purpose and format of each parameter. It mentions 'target bus' but does not clarify the 'export_path' parameter, its default, or its role. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 uses specific verbs ('open', 'measure') and identifies the resource ('each line', '3-phase short-circuit level at a target bus'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_three_phase_short_circuit' or 'set_line_out_of_service'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to run a full contingency analysis or use the single short-circuit tool. The description implies a use case but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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