Huygens Mtf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether the system must be connected, whether the calculation is computationally expensive, what the output looks like (no output schema), or whether prior analysis settings apply. For a heavyweight optical analysis with zero annotation coverage, this is a major 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 efficient sentence with no waste. Slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, but the structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 annotations, no output schema, and nine parameters, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the return values, the computational cost, prerequisites (e.g., a loaded system, valid fields/wavelengths), or how it differs from the multiple other MTF tools in the sibling list.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters with defaults and semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'direct pupil integration'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Calculate Huygens MTF') and the method ('direct pupil integration'), which distinguishes it from siblings like zemax_fft_mtf or zemax_geometric_mtf. However, it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, so the agent must infer the distinction from domain knowledge rather than the description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus zemax_fft_mtf, zemax_geometric_mtf, or zemax_huygens_psf. An agent must know optics to choose correctly; the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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