Run Analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether the analysis opens a window, requires a connected session, blocks, costs compute time, or how 'sample results' are selected or returned. 'Extract sample results' is vague about the return shape for a tool with no output schema.

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 efficient sentence with no padding and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 generic dispatch tool sitting beside dozens of specific analysis tools, the description is missing the crucial context: what an AnalysisIDM is, how to discover valid names, how it relates to the specialized siblings, and what 'sample results' means. With no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent unable to call the tool confidently.

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 there is only one parameter, documented as 'ZOSAPI AnalysisIDM member'. The description adds no examples, no valid value list, and no format details beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a verb ('Run') and resource ('an arbitrary AnalysisIDM by name'), but 'AnalysisIDM' is ZOSAPI-internal jargon that an agent cannot resolve without external knowledge. It is distinguishable from siblings like zemax_fft_mtf or zemax_ray_fan only by the fact that those name specific analyses, but the description does not explain this distinction or what an AnalysisIDM actually is.

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 guidance is given on when to use this generic tool versus the many specialized analysis siblings (zemax_fft_mtf, zemax_ray_fan, zemax_spot_diagram, etc.). An agent cannot tell whether this is a fallback for unsupported analyses or the preferred path, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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