Rms Spot

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 the calculation mutates the system, requires an open/connected file, is read-only, or how a single returned radius is reported. For a 'calculate' tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though so short that it omits useful routing and return information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what is returned (a scalar RMS radius, and perhaps units), which it does not. Combined with the unresolved overlap with zemax_spot_rms, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a 6-parameter analysis tool.

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 (hx, hy, useGrid, sampling, reference, wavelength) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the field point is normalized, adding no detail beyond the schema; 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 (Calculate) and resource (RMS spot radius) with scope (a normalized field point), so the agent knows what it produces. However, it fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling zemax_spot_rms (and zemax_spot_diagram), leaving duplication unresolved.

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 this versus zemax_spot_rms, zemax_spot_diagram, or the other spot/aberration analyses. No prerequisites (e.g., an open lens file) or context on when weights over a single field point are appropriate.

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