Get Ray Aiming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not confirm the operation is a safe read, list affected settings, or describe the returned state. A single clause restating the name leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.

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, appropriately sized for a trivial zero-argument getter. It is front-loaded, though extremely terse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the ray-aiming setting returns or what form it takes; it does not. For a getter with no annotations and no return documentation, the definition is incomplete for correct downstream use.

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 per the rubric a baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and no enums or nested objects exist.

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 ('ray-aiming setting'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling setter zemax_set_ray_aiming. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent getters, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The read-only intent is only inferable from the 'Get' verb, so an agent gets implied but unstated guidance.

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