Pop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: nothing about whether this is a read-only computation, whether it is expensive/slow, what it returns (irradiance/phase maps), or how startSurface/endSurface bound the propagation. The word 'Run' weakly implies a computation rather than a mutation, but that is the only signal.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the acronym expansion is the one piece of added value. It is concise to the point of being terse for a 10-parameter analysis tool.

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 10-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free analysis tool, the definition leaves an agent without the essential context: what the propagation produces, how beam type couples to beam parameters, and what the surface range constrains. Given no output schema exists, return-value behavior should have been described but is absent.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema text is largely tautological ('Beam parameter 1', 'X sampling'), leaving key semantics — that beamParameter1/2 meaning depends on beamType, and that field/wavelength are one-based — unexplained. The description adds nothing to compensate.

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 ('Run') and a named, non-obvious analysis resource ('Physical Optics Propagation (POP)'), expanding the acronym so an agent can recognize it as a distinct Zemax analysis rather than a generic run command. It does not, however, contrast itself with any sibling analysis tool such as zemax_fft_psf or zemax_huygens_psf.

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 POP is the right analysis versus the many other propagation/diffraction siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. which beam definition must already exist, when a Gaussian-waist beam model is valid). The agent must infer applicability on its own.

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