zemax_nsc_polar_detector_pixelRead a Detector Polar pixel or aggregate value from Ansys Zemax OpticStudio by supplying the object number, pixel or aggregate index, and quantity.
Read one Detector Polar pixel or aggregate value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixel | Yes | Pixel or documented aggregate index | |
| quantity | Yes | Polar detector quantity | |
| objectNumber | Yes | Detector Polar 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 burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing states permissions, whether the detector must be loaded/computed first, performance implications of per-pixel access, or the shape of the returned value.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the minimalism 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a bare schema for three required parameters, the description should explain what the pixel/aggregate read returns and how aggregate indices relate to pixels. It leaves an agent without enough to call the tool confidently in context.
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 all three parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's phrase 'or aggregate value' loosely supplements the schema's 'documented aggregate index', but adds no format or indexing details beyond that.
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 ('Read') and resource ('Detector Polar pixel or aggregate value'), which distinguishes it from the sibling zemax_nsc_detector_pixel (non-polar) and zemax_nsc_polar_detector_data. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or the non-sequential context, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the word 'Polar'.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative zemax_nsc_polar_detector_data for bulk retrieval. The agent must guess whether this is preferred over the sibling data tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.