Seidel Coefficients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only analysis but does not confirm non-mutation, does not state that a system must be loaded in Zemax, and gives no hint about output format, coefficient ordering, or sign conventions for a domain-specific computation.

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 redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. It is well-sized for the information it chooses to convey, though it is arguably too sparse rather than too verbose.

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 specialized optical aberration analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits whether the system must be configured, what form the returned coefficients take, and how results map to the requested wavelength, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would need filled.

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 coverage is 100% and the single wavelength parameter is documented ('0 for primary'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 specific verb (Calculate) and resource (third-order Seidel and chromatic aberration coefficients), which is more informative than the bare title 'Seidel Coefficients'. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like zemax_longitudinal_aberration or zemax_chromatic_focal_shift, so the agent must infer scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when Seidel coefficients are preferable to lateral color, pupil aberration fan, or the other aberration tools in the sibling list.

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