aedt_get_rcs_data

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only notes 'when supported', hinting that not all designs support RCS data. No information on side effects, permissions, or what happens if unsupported. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 and necessary detail for a tool with 7 parameters. It is not overly verbose but is under-specified.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not mention return behavior (though output schema exists), nor does it help the agent decide among many sibling data retrieval tools. The statement 'when supported' is vague.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the seven parameters. Defaults are given but no semantics, formats, or relationships. The description must compensate for missing schema descriptions but fails to do so.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'HFSS radar cross-section data', and the method 'through PyAEDT'. It also includes a limitation qualifier 'when supported'. This distinguishes it from sibling data retrieval tools like aedt_get_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use instructions. The sibling list includes many similar getters, but no differentiation is offered.

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