Cardinal Points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Calculate' implies a read-only computation, but the description does not say whether it acts on the currently loaded system, requires an active connection/file, or how the wavelength selection affects results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key output types front-loaded. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, and 'other cardinal points' is a touch vague, keeping it from a 5.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should do more heavy lifting. It lists the main outputs but omits preconditions (loaded system, active connection) and does not indicate the return format, leaving the agent to infer how to call and interpret the result.

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% and the single wavelength parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., that the wavelength number indexes the system's wavelength list), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Calculate) and resource (cardinal points) with examples of what is returned: focal lengths, principal planes. An agent can distinguish this analysis from siblings like zemax_seidel_coefficients or zemax_rms_spot. However, it does not name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when cardinal-point analysis is the right choice versus other first-order or aberration analyses in the sibling set.

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