zemax_run_tolerancingRun bounded Monte Carlo tolerancing in Zemax OpticStudio to quantify how manufacturing tolerances affect optical performance.
Run bounded Monte Carlo tolerancing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monteCarloRuns | No | Number of Monte Carlo runs (1-100) | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | Hard timeout in seconds (maximum 300) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'bounded' without explaining what bounds apply, and does not state whether the run is blocking, what happens on timeout, whether results are stored for the tde_summary tool, or whether a tolerance setup must exist first.
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 clause with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concise by design.
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?
A mutation/execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of prerequisites, blocking behavior, timeout handling, or where results go. For a run operation in a family of tolerance tools, the description is too thin to guide correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (monteCarloRuns 1-100, timeoutSeconds max 300) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though 'bounded' loosely gestures at the caps.
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 (Run) and resource (Monte Carlo tolerancing) with a modifier (bounded), but gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like zemax_tolerance_wizard or zemax_tde_summary. Siblings exist for tolerance setup and reporting, yet the description does not distinguish which one an agent should pick.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent seeing both zemax_tolerance_wizard and zemax_run_tolerancing has no guidance on which is the setup tool and which is the execution tool. The word 'Run' implies execution, but nothing is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.