aedt_get_fans_operating_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that data is returned, but does not indicate if the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but provides no additional details. While not verbose, the brevity sacrifices completeness. The sentence is earned for stating purpose, but more structure would aid readability.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description need not explain return values, but it still lacks context for the 4 parameters and usage scenarios. The description is too minimal to fully inform an AI agent about when and how to use this tool among many siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but fails to do so. No parameter names or purposes are mentioned. The four optional parameters (export_file, setup_name, time_step, design_variation) are entirely undeclared, leaving the agent without semantic understanding.

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 returns Icepak fan operating-point data, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, the niche purpose is implied by the name and description. This is a clear purpose but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only notes 'when supported by the active app,' which is a condition but does not compare to other data-retrieval tools like aedt_get_monitor_data or aedt_get_solution_data. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative mention.

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