Optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but 'Run native local optimization' does not disclose side effects such as modifying lens variables, required system state such as a merit function or defined variables, or what the operation returns. It adds only the 'local' qualifier beyond the title.

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?

Single four-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse for a tool whose name and title are already visible to the agent.

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 optimizer with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits prerequisites, side effects, and result behavior. It says it runs local optimization but leaves the agent unable to determine how to prepare for or interpret the call.

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%, and the schema already documents cores, cycles, method, and algorithm with defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 concrete action ('Run') and a resource ('local optimization'), and the word 'local' distinguishes it from global or hammer optimizers among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 on when to prefer this over zemax_global_search, zemax_hammer, zemax_multistart_optimize, or zemax_constrained_optimize. The description offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for use.

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