zemax_hammerRun native Hammer optimization to automatically refine optical systems in Ansys Zemax OpticStudio.
Run native Hammer optimization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cores | No | 0 uses all cores | |
| algorithm | No | DLS or Orthogonal | DLS |
| automatic | No | Use automatic mode | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | Hard timeout | |
| targetRuntimeMinutes | No | Automatic target runtime |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Run native Hammer optimization' implies a computation that likely mutates the optical system, but it does not state that it modifies the system, whether a merit function is required, how long it may run, or what side effects occur.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its extreme brevity means it omits almost all useful context rather than being padded.
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 an optimization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, whether other optimization tools should be preferred, expected behavior, and any relation to the many sibling optimization and analysis tools.
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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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, 'Run', and a specific resource, 'native Hammer optimization'. This distinguishes it from generic optimization siblings like zemax_optimize and zemax_multistart_optimize, but it does not explicitly say what Hammer is or how it differs from those siblings.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative optimization tools such as zemax_optimize, zemax_global_search, or zemax_multistart_optimize. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.