aedt_post_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'Return...' but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, performance characteristics, or any limitations. The description lacks transparency about side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the key action and result. No extraneous information is present; every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description lists what is returned (report names, types, field plots, quantities). However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., active design or project) or whether an active session is needed, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The brief description implicitly confirms that no parameters are required, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return report names, report types, field plots, and available post quantities.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like aedt_create_report (creation) and aedt_get_solution_data (data retrieval) by focusing on summary/listing of post-processing items.

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 other summary tools such as aedt_configuration_summary or aedt_design_summary. The description provides no context about prerequisites, active design requirements, or appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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