Quick Focus

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 says the tool 'adjusts back focal distance' — a mutation of system state — but does not disclose whether the change is persisted, reversible, requires specific modes, or what it returns.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the missing behavioral context.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the information an agent needs: what the adjustment affects, whether it operates on the loaded system, and side effects. Two schema-documented params are covered, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 both parameters (criterion, useCentroid) already carry descriptions and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action ('adjust back focal distance') via a named feature ('Quick Focus'), so the agent knows what it does. It does not distinguish itself from related optimization/analysis siblings like zemax_optimize or zemax_quick_focus alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indication of when to use Quick Focus versus other refocusing or optimization tools, and no prerequisites such as needing an open lens file or a defined merit function. The agent gets no context beyond what the name implies.

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