Fft Psf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the computation. It does not say what the analysis returns, whether it requires an open system, or how the four sampling/field settings affect the result.

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 zero waste, which is good structure. However, the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than optimally concise for a 4-parameter analysis 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 four optional parameters, the description should explain return content or setup requirements; it does neither. An agent lacks the context to invoke this analysis confidently.

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 four parameters (field, sampling, wavelength, imageSampling) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('diffraction FFT point-spread function'), so an agent knows the operation is a PSF computation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from zemax_huygens_psf by the 'FFT' qualifier, but never explicitly states the relationship to that sibling.

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 tool versus alternatives such as zemax_huygens_psf or zemax_fft_mtf, nor any prerequisites (e.g. a loaded system, defined fields/wavelengths). The agent must infer applicability entirely on its own.

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