zemax_get_surfaceFetch detailed data for a specified sequential surface by surface number, where 0 is the object and -1 is the image, to inspect optical system geometry.
Get detailed data for a sequential surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surfaceNumber | Yes | Surface number; 0 is object and -1 is image |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens with out-of-range surface numbers, or whether it requires an open sequential file, leaving the safety and prerequisite profile undocumented.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than rich conciseness.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape and read-only nature entirely undocumented. In a namespace this large, that is an inadequate level of context.
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 coverage is 100%; the single parameter already documents the 0=object / -1=image convention. The description adds no indexing or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (surface) with the qualifier 'sequential', distinguishing it from the many nsc_* siblings. It does not name a specific alternative reader like zemax_nsc_get_object or zemax_get_surface_solves.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. In a ~130-tool namespace with multiple surface-access tools (zemax_get_surface_solves, zemax_get_aspheric_surface, zemax_nsc_get_object), the agent gets no help choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.