Get System

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. 'Get' implies a read, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires a connected/live Zemax session, how large the payload may be, or what happens when all includes are disabled.

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, and the optional components are listed in the same order as the parameters. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a general-purpose reader.

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 should say more about the shape and scope of the returned 'system data' and its relationship to narrower getters. As written it is minimally viable for a zero-required-parameter getter but leaves the agent guessing about the return payload.

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 all three booleans are already documented with their meanings and defaults in the schema. The description merely restates that surfaces, fields, and wavelengths are optional, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the structured fields.

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 ('optical-system data') and enumerates the three optional sub-resources. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling readers such as zemax_get_configuration, zemax_get_title_notes, or zemax_lde_summary, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which getter to pick.

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 word 'optionally' hints that the includes are toggles, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is the general system-level reader versus the granular siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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