Get Aspheric Surface

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 only names the returned fields. It says nothing about whether the surface must be of Even Asphere type, what happens on a non-aspheric surface, permission/connection requirements, or error behavior. For a read-only getter the risk is low, but the disclosure is thin.

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 front-loads the key information with no filler. However it is arguably under-specified rather than concise: the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or behavioral context.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description at least enumerates what is returned (conic and alpha1-alpha8), which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema. It still omits the precondition that the surface be an even asphere and any error/edge-case behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for its complexity level.

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% but the schema text is only 'Surface number', adding little. The description adds no format, indexing convention (e.g. surface 0 = object), or valid-range information beyond the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema carries the parameter.

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 (Even Asphere surface) plus the exact returned quantities (conic, alpha1-alpha8), so an agent knows it reads aspheric coefficients rather than general surface data. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling getters (e.g. zemax_get_surface, zemax_get_extra_data) or note the inverse sibling zemax_set_aspheric_surface, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention that the surface must be an even-asphere type, no prerequisites, no statement of when to prefer this over zemax_get_surface or zemax_get_extra_data. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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