opendss_get_loads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it clarifies that of the VoltageInput fields only response_format is honored, and that values are both nominal and solved — the latter implying the circuit must already be solved.

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 Args/Returns structure is easy to scan and front-loads the core behavior. The 'Returns nominal and actual kW/kvar' sentence partially restates the opening sentence, which is mild redundancy but not damaging for a definition this short.

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 fully annotated read-only tool with an output schema, explaining return values is not strictly required, and the definition is close to sufficient. However, it omits the prerequisite that a circuit be compiled and solved before loads have 'actual' values, and gives no guidance on selecting this tool over its peers.

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 reported as 0% for a single required param, so the description must carry the load. It correctly notes that only response_format is used, which is important given the inherited kv_max/kv_min fields, but it never explains the markdown/json enum options or their effect on output, leaving a real gap.

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 and resource ('Get active and reactive power for every load in the circuit') and further narrows the output to 'nominal and actual (solved) kW/kvar for each load element.' This clearly separates it from siblings like opendss_get_voltages and opendss_get_line_flows without needing to read either 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?

The description says what the tool returns but never states when to call it versus alternatives such as opendss_voltage_summary or opendss_get_loading, nor whether a circuit must be compiled/solved first. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and domain knowledge.

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