Get Merit Function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Beyond the word 'Retrieve' implying a read, it says nothing about cost of value calculation, whether rows are paginated like startRow/endRow suggest, or what error/lack-of-merit-function behavior looks like.

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; the resource and the value-retrieval option come first. It is efficient, though the same brevity is what leaves the guidance gaps.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, a three-parameter query tool needs more than one sentence. Return shape, row-range semantics, and how it differs from zemax_merit_value are all unaddressed.

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 startRow, endRow, and includeValues are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optional calculated values' loosely echoes includeValues but adds no format, range, or cost detail 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: retrieve merit-function operands (and their calculated values). That tells an agent exactly what the tool returns, but it does nothing to separate it from close siblings such as zemax_merit_value, zemax_merit_wizard, or zemax_forbes_merit_function.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting it over zemax_merit_value or zemax_load_merit_function_file, and no stated prerequisites. The agent is left to infer context 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.