Global Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose what the operation mutates (variables, glasses), whether it modifies the open file irreversibly, expected runtime, or that it may run long given a timeout parameter. 'Optional glass substitution' is asserted with no explanation of its effect.

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 core action leads. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 mutation/optimization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits whether the current system is modified, what becomes of results, and how this relates to the many sibling optimizers, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, so the four parameters (cores, algorithm, timeoutSeconds, solutionsToSave) are fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, and oddly references glass substitution, which has no corresponding parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run native global optimization.' However, it does not differentiate this from siblings that also perform global optimization, notably zemax_hammer (a global method) and zemax_multistart_optimize, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the text alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus zemax_optimize, zemax_hammer, zemax_multistart_optimize, or zemax_constrained_optimize. The mention of 'optional glass substitution' is not framed as a condition or prerequisite for invoking the tool.

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