zemax_fft_mtfCalculate diffraction FFT MTF curves for all fields in Zemax OpticStudio by specifying maximum frequency, sampling level, and wavelength.
Calculate diffraction FFT MTF curves for all fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sampling | No | Sampling level 1-6 | |
| frequency | Yes | Maximum cycles/mm | |
| wavelength | No | 0 for polychromatic |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool calculates curves but omits whether it is read-only, whether it modifies system state, what the return format is, and any permission or setup requirements. For a computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward analysis command.
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 explain what result the agent receives (e.g., MTF values per field, plot, or file). It also lacks any when-to-use context in a crowded MTF sibling group. The description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.
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 each parameter is clearly documented in the schema (sampling level 1-6, frequency max cycles/mm, wavelength 0 for polychromatic). The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Calculate') and resource ('diffraction FFT MTF curves') and adds the scope 'for all fields', which distinguishes it from the sibling zemax_fft_mtf_vs_field. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with other MTF siblings (geometric, huygens), so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many MTF-related siblings such as zemax_geometric_mtf, zemax_huygens_mtf, or zemax_fft_mtf_vs_field. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., system must be loaded) or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.