aedt_analyze

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'run analysis,' which is vague—no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or whether it modifies the design. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It front-loads the purpose but lacks detail, making it adequate but not exemplary in conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of setting analyze_all to true, the required state of the design, or what happens after analysis. The presence of an output schema mitigates completeness slightly, but the description itself is lacking.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'named setup or active design' but does not clarify the roles of setup_name and analyze_all. The schema titles are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 clearly states 'Run analysis for a named setup or the active design,' specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling aedt_analyze_setup by offering flexibility between a named setup and the active design, which adds purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like aedt_analyze_setup or when to use the parameters. The description implicitly covers the context but lacks explicit usage conditions or alternatives.

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