zemax_add_surfaceInsert a new sequential surface into a Zemax OpticStudio lens system at a chosen position, with radius, thickness, material, and comment.
Insert a new sequential surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | No | Radius; 0 is planar | |
| comment | No | Surface comment | |
| insertAt | No | Position; 0 appends before image | |
| material | No | Glass name; empty means air | |
| thickness | No | Thickness to the next surface |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that a surface is inserted but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or whether an active Zemax session is needed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple insertion tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage context, behavioral details, and any indication of prerequisites or return behavior, leaving critical context unstated.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a new sequential surface'), and the qualifier 'sequential' distinguishes it from non-sequential siblings like zemax_nsc_add_object and zemax_nsc_insert_object. However, it does not differentiate itself from other sequential insertion tools such as zemax_lde_insert_surface or zemax_lde_set_surface.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'sequential' implies a context, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of sibling tools like zemax_lde_insert_surface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.