opendss_fault_1ph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the compile prerequisite, the concrete outputs returned (fault current, 3I0, per-phase pre/post voltages, Scc, sag), and the dual-fault technique. Missing only details like state persistence across calls.

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 one-line purpose followed by Args/Returns sections; each sentence carries information. Slightly long for a single-parameter tool, but nothing is redundant.

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, return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes them. Combined with the compile prerequisite and the fault-method guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly, including the physics context.

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 coverage is reported at 0% for the top-level wrapper, and the description only summarizes 'bus name, phase, and fault resistance' without explaining phase encoding or r_fault units. The dual-fault hint (0.01 vs 1.0) is the one useful parameter-adjacent detail; response_format is never mentioned. Meets the baseline when the nested schema carries most field documentation.

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 specific verb (run), resource (single-phase-to-ground fault), and scope (at a specific bus), and the 1ph vs 3ph distinction separates it cleanly from opendss_fault_3ph and the Thévenin siblings. An agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite ('circuit must be compiled first with opendss_compile_file or _script') and explains the dual-call method with different r_fault values to extract Z0_th, naming the sibling alternatives by name. This is genuine when-to-use guidance, not inference.

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