zemax_nsc_convert_to_sequentialConvert an eligible non-sequential group to sequential mode in Zemax OpticStudio, with optional first and last object indices to target the components to convert.
Convert an eligible NSC group to sequential mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lastObject | No | Last object | |
| firstObject | No | First object |
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. It does not disclose what 'eligible' means, what happens to the optical model during conversion, whether the operation is reversible (a sibling implies it may be), or whether it requires an open file.
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 waste. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitted detail rather than being fully earned conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and vacuous parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It leaves the eligibility condition, side effects, and reversibility entirely unspecified.
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 coverage is nominally 100%, so the schema is the primary parameter source. However, the schema descriptions ('First object', 'Last object') are tautological and add no real meaning, and the tool description adds nothing either, leaving the range semantics implicit. Baseline 3 applies given high nominal coverage.
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 and resource (convert an NSC group to sequential mode), which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling zemax_nsc_convert_to_nonsequential (the inverse operation), so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the reverse operation as an alternative. The single word 'eligible' hints that preconditions exist but never says what they are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.