Longitudinal Aberration

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, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Calculate' implies a non-mutating analysis, but there is no mention of whether the lens state must already be open, whether the result is returned as data or a plot, or whether any configuration/wavelength context is required.

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 padding or restatement of the tool name. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing context.

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 parameterless analysis call the description covers the minimum, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent still lacks any indication of what comes back (numeric curve, plot, window) or what system state is required. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema defines zero parameters (additionalProperties false), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is misleading about the empty signature.

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 names a specific verb and optical quantity: 'Calculate longitudinal aberration versus pupil position.' This is far more informative than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from lateral-color or chromatic-focal-shift siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closer alternatives like zemax_pupil_aberration_fan or zemax_ray_fan.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., a lens must be loaded in the connected session). The agent gets an implied 'this computes an analysis' but no routing guidance among the many analysis siblings.

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