opendss_violations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful context the annotations do not carry: the per-phase voltage semantics, the default thresholds (0.95/1.05 pu, 100% NormAmps), and the implicit precondition that a solve must exist first. It does not discuss performance or behavior on an unsolved case.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the two most decision-relevant facts (defaults, standards) and a workflow instruction. The Args/Returns block is largely redundant with the schema and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return contents, and annotations cover the safety profile. Together with the stated defaults and workflow placement, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing is left implicit.

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% schema-description coverage at the top level, so the description must carry the load, and it does add meaning beyond defaults: it explains that limits are per-phase and must be set to the governing standard when it differs. It mentions the optional kV base filter only in passing and leaves kv_min/kv_max semantics to the nested schema definitions.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and dual resource: 'report buses outside [v_min, v_max] pu and elements above loading_max %'. This clearly distinguishes it from voltage-reading siblings (get_voltages, voltage_summary) and loading siblings (get_loading, get_line_flows), since it produces a pass/fail compliance report rather than raw values.

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?

'Use it after every solve to verify the case before reporting results' gives clear placement in the workflow, and the instruction to pass applicable-standard limits (NTC 1340 / CREG) explicitly says when to override defaults. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g. when to prefer voltage_summary), so it stops short of a 5.

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