Geometric Mtf Vs Field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not state that this is a non-mutating analysis, whether it requires existing field definitions, what happens when all six frequencies are left at 0, or how results are presented.

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 filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in itself.

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 an analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the result contains and what system state it depends on. It says neither, leaving an agent unable to predict the return value or prerequisites.

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 every parameter documents its own '0 skips' behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the count ceiling ('up to six frequencies'), which is already evident from the six properties, so it contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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: calculate geometric MTF versus field. This distinguishes it from zemax_geometric_mtf (presumably vs frequency) by the 'versus field' scope, but it never names or contrasts the nearest sibling, zemax_fft_mtf_vs_field, so an agent must infer the geometric-vs-FFT distinction.

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 guidance on when to choose this over zemax_fft_mtf_vs_field, zemax_geometric_mtf, or zemax_huygens_mtf. No prerequisites (fields/wavelengths must be defined first), no statement that it is an analysis-only read operation.

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