zemax_ray_traceTrace a normalized sequential ray through an optical system to the image, using field and pupil coordinates, wavelength, and target surface.
Trace one normalized sequential ray.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hx | No | Normalized field X | |
| hy | No | Normalized field Y | |
| px | No | Normalized pupil X | |
| py | No | Normalized pupil Y | |
| surface | No | 0 traces to image | |
| wavelength | No | Wavelength number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it offers almost none: it does not say whether the call mutates any state, what it returns, whether it requires an open sequential system, or what "normalized" input coordinates mean. Only the sequential-mode hint adds minor value.
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. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a six-parameter 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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains neither the return value (ray coordinates? OPD? status?) nor the preconditions for calling it. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral and output dimensions are left entirely to inference.
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 all six parameters are already documented (hx/hy, px/py, surface, wavelength). The description adds only the word "normalized", which is consistent with the schema but redundant; 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 specific verb and resource ("Trace ... ray") and the scope ("one", "sequential", "normalized"), which implicitly separates it from siblings like batch_ray_trace and nsc_ray_trace. Clear enough that an agent knows what it does without opening the schema.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a system must be open/connected first), and no routing to alternatives such as zemax_batch_ray_trace or zemax_nsc_ray_trace. The qualifiers "one" and "sequential" hint at distinction but do not state it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.