Geometric Mtf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Calculate' implies a non-destructive read/compute, but there is no mention of prerequisites (open file, connection state), whether results are cached or recomputed, or what the analysis returns. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by describing the return shape (MTF curves across frequency for each field) and any prerequisites. For a 3-parameter analysis tool it leaves the agent without enough context 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% – wavelength ('0 for polychromatic'), maxFrequency ('Maximum cycles/mm'), and multiplyByDiffractionLimit are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Calculate geometric MTF curves') plus scope ('for all fields'), which is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as zemax_fft_mtf, zemax_huygens_mtf, or zemax_geometric_mtf_vs_field, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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 tool versus the FFT MTF, Huygens MTF, or MTF-vs-field variants, and no prerequisites (e.g., a loaded lens system and a connected session are implied but not stated). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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