Pupil Aberration Fan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it requires an open/connected Zemax session, whether it mutates state, or what the output looks like (plot vs. numeric data). Only the barest assertion of what is computed is given.

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 no filler, which is efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 zero-argument analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum indicate prerequisites (active system/file) and the nature of the result. Neither is present, leaving the agent with meaningful gaps before invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. No description content is needed here.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('entrance-pupil aberration fans'), which is more precise than a bare 'aberration fans' and hints at the entrance-pupil distinction. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling analysis tools like zemax_ray_fan, zemax_opd_fan, or zemax_seidel_coefficients, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g., a loaded lens file in Zemax), and no mention of which sibling to prefer for related aberration analyses. The agent gets no routing information at all.

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