Nsc Get Object Parameter

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. 'Get' implies a safe read, and 'type-specific' hints that valid parameter indices depend on the object type, but the description says nothing about error behavior for invalid object numbers or out-of-range parameters, nor whether the returned value's type/units vary. Significant gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true 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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves an agent guessing how to obtain a valid object number and how parameter indices map per object type, which the 'type-specific' phrasing raises but does not answer.

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 100%: both parameters are fully documented as 'One-based parameter column' and 'One-based object number'. The description adds mild value with 'type-specific', signaling that the meaning of the parameter index depends on the object type, but it provides no concrete mapping or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('type-specific NSC object parameter'), which is precise enough to distinguish this from most siblings like zemax_nsc_get_object or detector tools. However, it never names the obvious counterpart (zemax_nsc_set_object_parameter) or explains what makes a parameter 'type-specific', so differentiation rests on the name alone.

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 prerequisite (e.g. requiring a valid object number from a prior get/list call), and no routing to alternatives such as zemax_nsc_get_object or zemax_nsc_summary. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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