Huygens Psf

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only analysis, whether it requires an open system file, computational cost, or how the result is returned. 'Calculate' implies a non-mutating computation but this is inferred, not stated.

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 short sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 four-parameter optical analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It communicates neither operational prerequisites (such as requiring an open lens file), nor how this PSF differs from the FFT PSF variant, nor the shape of the returned data.

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%: field is documented as one-based, wavelength as 0-for-polychromatic, and both sampling parameters are named. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('Huygens point-spread function'), which identifies the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely related siblings like zemax_fft_psf or zemax_huygens_mtf, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this PSF variant is appropriate.

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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. With siblings such as zemax_fft_psf and zemax_huygens_mtf, the omission leaves the agent with no basis for selection.

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