Merit Wizard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the tool as a legacy wrapper and says nothing about side effects, interactive behavior, required permissions, or what happens when the wizard is invoked.

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 terse noun phrase, which avoids verbosity but is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this brevity leaves the agent without actionable structure.

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?

The tool complex enough to need behavioral or usage context, and it has no annotations or output schema to compensate. The only schema parameter is documented, but the description still omits what the wizard does and when to call it.

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%, and the single parameter optimizationGoal is documented as 'Informational goal' with a default. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers the 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 'Legacy merit-function wizard wrapper' essentially restates the tool name and title without stating a concrete action or scope. It does not explain what the wizard does, what it configures, or how it differs from siblings like zemax_optimization_wizard or zemax_get_merit_function.

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 tool versus alternatives such as zemax_optimization_wizard or zemax_forbes_merit_function. The word 'legacy' hints at an older wrapper but gives no condition for selecting it.

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