zemax_batch_ray_traceTrace batches of normalized sequential rays through a Zemax optical system to a chosen surface or image at a specified wavelength.
Trace a batch of normalized sequential rays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rays | Yes | [Hx,Hy,Px,Py] rays | |
| rayType | No | Real or Paraxial | Real |
| toSurface | No | -1 means image | |
| wavelength | No | Wavelength number |
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 carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is a single terse sentence. It discloses nothing about return values, whether a lens/system must be loaded first, error behavior for malformed rays, or any connection requirements.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a 4-parameter ray-tracing tool.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a domain-specific tool, the description is far too thin. It omits what is returned, whether an open Zemax instance is required, and how the batch input is interpreted or validated.
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 already documents every parameter including the [Hx,Hy,Px,Py] format and the -1 image convention. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is 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 (trace) and resource (batch of normalized sequential rays), and the word 'sequential' meaningfully distinguishes it from the non-sequential siblings like zemax_nsc_ray_trace. However, it never explicitly references the sibling it most overlaps with (zemax_ray_trace), so the agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction.
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 over zemax_ray_trace or zemax_nsc_ray_trace. The description never states the context or conditions that select batch tracing, nor any prerequisites such as an open system or active connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.