zemax_geometric_image_analysisRun geometric image analysis in Zemax OpticStudio, returning or exporting an image grid for the specified field, wavelength, and ray count.
Run geometric image analysis and return/export the image grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | One-based field | |
| showAs | No | Display mode | |
| filePath | No | Optional export path | |
| raysX1000 | No | Ray count in thousands | |
| wavelength | No | 0 for polychromatic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints at a return/export of an 'image grid' but does not disclose whether it requires an open system/file, what the grid represents, whether export is conditional on filePath, or any 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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but arguably too terse to earn a top score given the tool's complexity.
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 5-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, the meaning of the returned grid, and export behavior. The agent is left to guess about invocation context.
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 each of the 5 parameters (field, showAs, filePath, raysX1000, wavelength) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the 'image grid' notion, 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+resource ('Run geometric image analysis') and adds the output intent ('return/export the image grid'). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like zemax_geometric_encircled_energy, zemax_geometric_mtf, or zemax_geometric_mtf_vs_field.
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 indication of when to use this vs. other geometric analyses or when export is appropriate. The only hint is the 'filePath' parameter and the word 'export', leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.