opendss_hosting_capacity

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

Discloses a non-obvious side effect the annotations do not capture: 'The circuit is recompiled clean afterwards, so edits made with run_command/edit_element before the study are lost.' This is exactly the kind of operational consequence an agent needs. It falls short of 5 only because it does not reconcile that state reset with destructiveHint=false, nor describe runtime/cost or convergence-failure behavior beyond the enumerated output fields.

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, then prerequisites, side effects, Args and Returns in a scannable structure; nearly every sentence carries information. The Returns paragraph partially restates what the output schema would already provide, which is the only mildly redundant element.

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 multi-step study tool with nested params and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the recommended operating point, the side effect on prior edits, and the interpretation of both PV allocation modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening any other artifact.

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 'Args' line summarizes the payload ('bus list, PV steps, transformer kVA, load_mult and limits'), which maps to the required and key optional fields. Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the wrapper level, but the referenced schema itself carries per-field descriptions, so the description adds little semantics beyond name-level enumeration and does not, for example, explain pv_kw_steps ordering or how limits interact.

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 ('Run a hosting capacity study by incrementally adding PV generation') and immediately scopes the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/compile/inspection tools, and it enumerates the outputs (Vmin/Vmax, violation counts, binding constraint) so an agent knows exactly what class of operation this is.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('The circuit must be compiled from a file first (not from script)') and the condition for meaningful results ('Run it at minimum load (load_mult ~0.3): DER limits do not show at peak'). It also names the interaction with other tools (run_command/edit_element) and specifies which mode applies (uniform vs worst-case), leaving little to inference.

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