aedt_get_antenna_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns data via PyAEDT. There is no mention of side effects (e.g., does it modify the design?), required permissions, or what happens if the app does not support antenna data. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 12-word sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure—no bullet points, examples, or front-loaded critical details. While brevity is good, it sacrifices essential information, making it insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema shown, and complex sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on parameter usage, output format, or prerequisites. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters or their meaning, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names (e.g., 'frequencies', 'setup') which may be ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.

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 that the tool returns HFSS antenna data, with a specific verb 'Return' and a resource 'antenna data'. The phrase 'when the active app supports it' adds a condition, helping to distinguish from other data retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like aedt_get_touchstone_data or aedt_get_solution_data, lacking detail on what constitutes 'antenna data'.

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 only hints at usage with 'when the active app supports it', implying not all apps are valid. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for far-field vs. touchstone data), no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisite information.

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