Optimization Wizard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a write/mutation operation by saying 'Construct,' but it does not warn that clearExisting defaults to true, that existing operands may be cleared, or that boundary constraints may be added by default. It gives no side-effect, permission, or state-change context.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified for a 13-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing context rather than effective 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 complex, unannotated, 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits when to use it, how it differs from sibling merit-function tools, default side effects, and expected outcomes, leaving major 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields do 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 and resource: 'Construct a merit function.' However, 'using Optimization Wizard criteria' is circular and does not explain what criteria are or how this differs from sibling zemax_merit_wizard. The purpose is only vaguely clear beyond the tool name and title.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when to prefer alternatives like zemax_merit_wizard, or what prerequisites or system state are required. The description gives no usage context at all.

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