opendss_fault_3ph

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the compile-first dependency and the exact modeled output (per-phase currents, Scc, voltage sag counts below 0.80/0.50 pu). It stops short of saying whether the applied fault mutates circuit state or must be cleared.

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 behavior and precondition are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns blocks are easy to scan. The returns are stated twice (prose sentence plus the 'Returns:' line), which is mild redundancy given an output schema already exists.

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?

For a single-parameter study tool with an output schema present, the description supplies purpose, precondition, and expected outputs, so return-value detail is not needed. The remaining gap is sibling routing against fault_1ph/fault_sweep and any note on circuit state after the fault.

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?

The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does name the two meaningful inputs ('bus name and fault resistance'). It adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions and omits the response_format option, leaving the parameter semantics only partially compensated.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Run a three-phase fault at a specific bus') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling opendss_fault_1ph by specifying three-phase. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route the agent, but the scope is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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 states a real precondition ('The circuit must be compiled first with opendss_compile_file or _script'), which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to choose this over opendss_fault_1ph, opendss_fault_sweep, or the thevenin tools, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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