Nsc Detector Pixel

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. "Read" implies a safe read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, whether detector data must be loaded first, or what the returned value represents (flux/power/phase), which for a zero-annotation tool is a meaningful 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted tokens. It is tight, though the phrase "aggregate index" is slightly cryptic and could have been made concrete at negligible length cost.

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 4-parameter schema is well documented, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should have clarified what a pixel read returns and how aggregate indices behave. It is minimally adequate rather than complete for the agent's decision.

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%, with the pixel, dataType, quantity, and objectNumber parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing semantic beyond the schema's own wording, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 pairs a clear verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("one detector pixel or aggregate index"), so the agent knows it retrieves a single detector value. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like zemax_nsc_detector_data (bulk read) or zemax_nsc_polar_detector_pixel (polarized variant), which the agent must infer on its own.

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 zemax_nsc_detector_data, zemax_nsc_polar_detector_pixel, or the viewer tools. The phrase "aggregate index" hints at a special case but never states the condition (e.g., negative pixel values) that selects it.

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