zemax_get_apodizationRetrieve aperture apodization settings from an Ansys Zemax OpticStudio optical system to inspect how pupil transmission varies across the aperture.
Get aperture apodization settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing about behavior. It doesn't confirm this is a non-mutating read, whether a system must be open/connected first, or what the returned settings contain.
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 short sentence with no padding, which is appropriate for a zero-argument getter. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful, so it stays in the upper-middle range.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it says nothing about what apodization types exist, what fields come back, or any prerequisites. For a getter returning domain-specific optical data, this is insufficient.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 ('Get') and resource ('aperture apodization settings'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling zemax_set_apodization. However, it offers no further differentiation or scope detail beyond the name itself.
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 use this rather than zemax_get_aperture, zemax_get_system, or zemax_set_apodization. The read/write pairing with zemax_set_apodization is inferable from naming alone, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.