Geometric Encircled Energy

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. It states the calculation is ray-based, but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g. whether a system must be loaded/connected), whether results are written to the lens file, or what the analysis returns. For a bare analysis tool this leaves real behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentence with the resource and output axis front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the analysis returns and when it applies. It provides only the one-line purpose, leaving the agent without return-value or usage context for a moderately parameterized analysis tool.

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 all five parameters (sampling, useDashes, scatterRays, showDiffractionLimit, scaleByDiffractionLimit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate ray-based geometric encircled energy versus radius.' That is enough to know exactly what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'zemax_diffraction_encircled_energy', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 qualifier 'ray-based geometric' implicitly signals the ray-trace regime as opposed to a diffraction computation, which is a usable hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative despite the diffraction encircled-energy sibling existing.

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