aedt_create_port

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic process. It omits side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the design database), required permissions, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent uninformed about return values.

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 sentence, achieving high conciseness. However, it is underspecified and lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections). It could be expanded to include parameter guidance or usage notes without becoming overly verbose.

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's complexity (3 parameters, including flexible args/kwargs) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the behavior of each port method, the role of args/kwargs, or any design prerequisites. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the description alone.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the text does not mention 'method', 'args', or 'kwargs'. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters from the description, making it entirely reliant on the schema, which also lacks descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: creating a common HFSS/Circuit port via a controlled PyAEDT method. The verb 'create' and resource 'port' are explicit. However, it does not elaborate on the different port types or how it differs from related tools like aedt_assign_boundary_or_excitation, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool's name and context, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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