Fft Mtf Vs Field

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. It says nothing about prerequisites (a loaded system, defined fields/wavelengths), whether an analysis window is opened, units, or computational cost. Only the computation itself is disclosed.

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 the verb, resource, scan direction, and limit all present and zero filler. Nothing redundant or buried.

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?

For a 7-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is computed but omits prerequisites and any hint about the result. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the operational context from siblings.

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 sampling levels and the six frequency slots including the '0 skips' convention. The description adds only that frequencies are capped at six, which is a marginal restatement of the schema. Baseline 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), resource (polychromatic FFT MTF) and a distinct scope (versus Y field, up to six frequencies). This differentiates it from zemax_fft_mtf (MTF vs frequency) and zemax_geometric_mtf_vs_field (geometric rather than FFT), though it never explicitly names those siblings to remove doubt.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent facing zemax_fft_mtf, zemax_geometric_mtf_vs_field, and zemax_huygens_mtf gets no help choosing this FFT-vs-field variant over the others.

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