opendss_get_voltages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it specifies the output fields (average/min/max pu, kV base, phases, distance from source, coordinates) and the ascending sort order, and 'in the compiled circuit' quietly signals a prerequisite. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose, then the return fields and the filtering hint, followed by tidy Args/Returns sections. The Returns section largely duplicates the output schema, so it is slightly redundant, but the whole thing is short and every line is readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so exhaustive return documentation is not required, and the description still names the key fields and sort order. The main gap is the absence of any differentiation from the sibling voltage_summary; beyond that, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 context reports 0% top-level schema description coverage, but the nested VoltageInput schema actually documents kv_min/kv_max richly (line-to-neutral reporting, default-drop behavior). The description only restates 'kv_min/kv_max filters' plus the MV/LV intent, adding little syntax detail beyond what the nested schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get voltage magnitude (pu) for all buses in the compiled circuit') and enumerates the returned fields, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling opendss_voltage_summary (or opendss_violations), so an agent cannot tell which of the voltage tools to prefer without reading both schemas.

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 gives one implicit usage hint ('Filter by kv_base range to focus on MV or LV buses'), which implies when to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any routing to alternatives such as voltage_summary or violations. Usage is suggested rather than stated.

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