get_lens

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a read-only tool. It usefully discloses the scoping nuance that zoom_position only affects data fetched by zoom position, and that field data carries CODE V VUX/VLX/VUY/VLY vignetting factors, but it never states read-only/no-side-effect semantics or anything about volume/size of the returned data.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the tool's scope and followed by the two operative caveats (vignetting-factor naming/write path, zoom_position scoping). No filler, though the parenthetical CODE V identifier list is dense reference material rather than selection guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; given that, the description covers what is read, the zoom-position behavior, and the write counterpart. It leaves minor gaps about the relationship to get_status and whether a session must be open first.

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 explain the single parameter, and it does: zoom_position is for multi-zoom lenses and only affects zoom-position-dependent values. The default-null / 'omit for the current position' semantics are implied rather than stated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb (读取/read) plus the resource (当前镜头/current lens) and enumerates exactly which data blocks it returns (surfaces, materials, units, aperture, wavelength, field, zoom position). This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like update_lens and edit_lens_structure, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

It states the condition for the optional parameter (zoom_position applies to multi-zoom lenses only) and points at the alternative tool for the write path (vignetting factors can be modified via update_lens). It never states explicitly when to prefer get_lens over get_status or get_analysis, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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