zemax_analysis_seriesRun arbitrary series analyses in Zemax OpticStudio and return decimated curves with adjustable point counts.
Run an arbitrary series analysis and return decimated curves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxPoints | No | Approximate max points per curve | |
| analysisType | Yes | ZOSAPI AnalysisIDM member |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions decimated curves but doesn't explain what 'series' means (e.g., parameter sweeps), what the output structure is, performance implications, or any side effects. The omission of key behavioral context is significant for an analysis tool.
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 that front-loads the action and result. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but efficiency is good.
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 complexity of series analysis and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what 'series' entails, what inputs are needed beyond analysisType, or what the output looks like, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when coverage is high.
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 states a verb ('Run') and resource ('arbitrary series analysis'), indicating an analysis-runner. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like zemax_run_analysis or the many specialized analysis tools (zemax_fft_mtf, zemax_ray_fan, etc.), leaving ambiguity about when this general series runner is preferred over specific analyzers.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous analysis-specific siblings. A user must infer that it's for series analyses not covered by dedicated tools, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.