Get Variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' implies a read operation, but nothing states whether it is read-only, what a partial or empty result means, or what the returned variable/constraint state looks like. For a getter with zero structured support, this is a notable gap.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though quite sparse given the absence of any other structured documentation.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only documentation an agent has. It identifies the subject matter ('variables and constraint states') but says nothing about return shape, so it is only minimally complete.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for.

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 clear verb ('scan/get') and resource ('optimization variables and constraint states'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the write-side siblings zemax_set_variable and zemax_set_variable_constraints. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as zemax_get_merit_function or zemax_set_variable_constraints. The context is only loosely implied by the word 'optimization'.

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