zemax_diffraction_encircled_energyCalculate FFT diffraction encircled energy versus radius to assess optical performance and evaluate how much energy falls within a given spot radius.
Calculate FFT diffraction encircled energy versus radius.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sampling | No | Sampling level 1-6 | |
| useDashes | No | Use dashes reference |
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 burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only analysis, what it returns, or any computational constraints. For an analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the result surface.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying rather than being elegantly concise.
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 no parameter guidance in the description, the definition is thin for a ZEMAX analysis tool whose return format (radius vs. energy table) an agent would want to know. The simple two-parameter schema keeps this from being lower, but key context is missing.
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?
Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage ('Sampling level 1-6', 'Use dashes reference'), so the schema does the explanatory work. The description adds nothing about how sampling affects results, which is the baseline for a fully-covered schema.
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 clear verb ('Calculate') and resource ('FFT diffraction encircled energy versus radius'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling zemax_geometric_encircled_energy by virtue of the 'FFT diffraction' qualifier. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it misses the top tier.
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 guidance on when to use this analysis versus the geometric encircled energy sibling or other spot/PSF analyses. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone, which is a significant omission given the large family of analysis tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.