zemax_nsc_load_detectorLoad detector data from a type-compatible file into a non-sequential Zemax detector object, optionally appending to existing data instead of replacing it.
Load detector data from a type-compatible detector data file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Existing detector data file | |
| appendData | No | Append rather than replace | |
| objectNumber | Yes | Detector object number |
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 behavioral burden. It does not state whether loading replaces existing detector data by default, what permissions or state are required, or what side effects occur; the only added context is the vague 'type-compatible' file constraint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse given the operation's potential side effects.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for a load operation that can replace detector data. It omits whether existing data is overwritten, what the return looks like, and how the required parameters interact, leaving meaningful 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents objectNumber, filePath, and appendData. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the file compatibility note, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb (Load) and resource (detector data), plus a compatibility constraint on the source file. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as zemax_nsc_save_detector or zemax_nsc_detector_data beyond the load-from-file action.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.