Operand Help

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get documentation' but does not state read-only status, whether it hits the filesystem or a static reference, or what it returns/errors on unknown mnemonics.

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 efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool, though it could carry slightly more substance.

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 simple single-param help tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits what the documentation contains and how unknown mnemonics are handled, but the core intent is conveyed.

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 operandType as an 'Operand mnemonic'. The description adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Get detailed documentation for an optimization operand.' An agent can distinguish this from peers like zemax_add_operand or zemax_search_operands by the documentation intent, though it does not name or contrast them explicitly.

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 and no reference to the closely related sibling zemax_search_operands. The agent is left to infer that this is for looking up an operand's meaning rather than finding operands by criteria.

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