opendss_compile_script

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the server writes the script to a temporary file, compiles, and solves in snapshot mode. It does not contradict the annotations (temp-file write is not a destructive persistent mutation). It omits failure/convergence behavior, but the core process is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key constraint ('inline', multi-line), then a short paragraph on internal behavior, then Args/Returns. Every sentence earns its place; the Args/Returns blocks are slightly redundant given the schema and output schema but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them (convergence, counts, losses). Combined with the annotations and the behavioral note about temp-file compilation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is 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?

Schema description coverage is effectively low for the wrapper level, so the description carries the burden: it explains that the script is the complete multi-line DSS text, adding meaning over the schema's terse field note. However, the response_format parameter is never mentioned in the description. Adequate but partial.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (compile an OpenDSS circuit, run power flow) and the qualifier 'from inline DSS commands' implicitly distinguishes it from opendss_compile_file. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the file-based sibling explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent to pass the complete script as a multi-line string and notes snapshot solve mode, which is actionable, but it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. vs opendss_compile_file or opendss_run_command). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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