Field Curvature Distortion

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the computed quantities. It does not state that it operates on the currently loaded system, whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or any limits. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 Zemax analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs to know it runs on the loaded system and roughly what comes back; neither is provided. The description names the measured quantities but omits the operational context required to invoke it 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% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents distortionType ('f_tan_theta or f_theta'). The description adds no meaning beyond this — it doesn't explain what the two distortion conventions mean — so the 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') and a specific resource ('tangential/sagittal field curvature and distortion'), naming the two quantities produced. It is distinct from siblings like seidel_coefficients and rms_spot, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this analysis versus alternatives such as zemax_seidel_coefficients or zemax_ray_fan, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a lens/system must be loaded). The description only says what it computes.

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