aedt_q3d_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., design modification), required permissions, or potential failures. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action of running an operation.

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 it lacks structure and critical details. Every word is arguably necessary given the brevity, but the minimalism undermines its utility. It earns a baseline score for not being 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to clarify what the tool returns or how to interpret results. With 3 parameters, one required, and no parameter documentation, the tool is under-described for an agent to confidently invoke it. More context on allowable methods and use of args/kwargs is essential.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists operation types but does not explain how they map to the required 'method' parameter, leaving the agent to guess argument values. The optional 'args' and 'kwargs' parameters are completely unexplained, offering no guidance on expected structure or content.

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 specifies the domain (Q3D/Q2D) and lists operation types (net, source, sink, thin conductor, matrix), distinguishing it from sibling operation tools like aedt_circuit_operation or aedt_hfss_operation. The verb 'run' is clear, though 'allowlisted' could be ambiguous to some agents.

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 implies the tool is for Q3D/Q2D operations but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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