opendss_thevenin_z0

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

Annotations mark this as a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds real substance: the dual-fault methodology, the requirement for a prior compile, and that Z1 is computed as a byproduct. It stops short of describing side effects on simulation state or any rate/iteration cost of running two faults.

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 a one-line purpose, then method, then Args/Returns. Every section is relevant; the Returns line is mild redundancy since an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and well organized.

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 return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them (R0_th, X0_th, Z0_th plus Z1). Combined with the compile prerequisite and method explanation, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only explicit sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 exposes bus, rf1, rf2, phase, and response_format, and the description re-states the meaningful ones (bus name, phase, two fault resistances) plus the dual-resistance rationale. It omits response_format and the defaults, but adds method context the schema cannot express.

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: 'Extract zero-sequence Thévenin impedance (Z0) at a bus,' and even names the method (dual-fault with 1F-G faults). The positive-sequence counterpart opendss_thevenin_z1 is never named, so routing relies on the reader inferring 'zero-sequence' vs 'positive-sequence' from the description and sibling names.

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 one important prerequisite ('The circuit must be compiled first'), which is genuinely useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over opendss_thevenin_z1, opendss_fault_1ph, or the sweep tools, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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