aedt_signal_integrity_expressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states what is returned, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or conditions like 'when supported'. The minimal description leaves agents unaware of important 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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but at the expense of critical information. It earns its place only partially.

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 with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description fails to provide adequate context. An agent cannot determine how to specify inputs or interpret results beyond the basic return type.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning for any of the 8 parameters (drivers, receivers, nets, etc.), leaving agents completely in the dark about what each parameter does or how to use them.

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 it returns specific expression lists (return-loss, insertion-loss, NEXT, FEXT). The verb 'Return' and resource 'expression lists' are well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, and the phrase 'when supported' introduces ambiguity about conditions.

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. No context on prerequisites, supported scenarios, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage direction.

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