Forbes Merit Function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that the tool mutates the merit function, that clearExisting defaults to true and will delete existing operands, or any other side effects.

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 filler, front-loading the core action. It could be slightly expanded for a ten-parameter tool, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given ten optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits that the operation modifies the merit function, the destructive default of clearExisting, and any guidance on sampling choices.

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 all ten parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Build explicit OPD operands using Forbes 1988 Gaussian quadrature sampling.' This distinguishes it as a merit-function operand generator, but it does not name or differentiate from siblings like zemax_merit_wizard or zemax_add_operand.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zemax_merit_wizard, zemax_optimization_wizard, or manually adding operands. No exclusions or context are given.

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