propose_mitigations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful domain context that results are OpenDSS-verified and that the DOE is deterministic snapshot-derived rather than live predictive, but does not describe runtime behavior, limits, or prerequisites.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the multi-line note is verbose domain jargon that consumes significant length without adding actionable clarity for selection. Structure is reasonable but the note is not tightly earned.

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 9 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, a complete description should explain at least the key inputs like proposed_capacity_kw and network_id usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input-side gap remains unaddressed.

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 0% across 9 parameters; the schema only provides titles and enums. The description supplies essentially no parameter-level meaning—the '(5kW/3kW)' hint is ambiguous and does not explain proposed_capacity_kw, feeder_background_scale, or operating_load_factor. It fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description names a verb ('Synthesize') and specific resources (Static Operating Envelopes, snapshot-bounded DOEs, TX system-strength options), but the heavy domain jargon makes it hard to map the name 'propose_mitigations' to a concrete action. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like sweep_connection_capacities or run_tier2_ac_study, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sweep_connection_capacities or run_tier2_ac_study. The note distinguishes a snapshot DOE from a predictive WLT forecast, but that clarifies terminology rather than when-to-invoke rules.

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