zemax_set_fieldsConfigure optical system field points by setting X/Y coordinates, weights, and coordinate type (Angle, ObjectHeight, etc.) for accurate Zemax simulations.
Set all field points and the field coordinate type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Field definitions | |
| points | No | Legacy [x,y] coordinate pairs | |
| fieldType | No | Angle, ObjectHeight, ParaxialImageHeight, or RealImageHeight | Angle |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies replacement of all field points via 'set all,' but does not explain overwrite behavior, prerequisites, effects on existing fields, or whether the operation is destructive.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and its scope immediately.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify how the 'fields' and legacy 'points' parameters interact, what happens to existing fields, or other behavior an agent needs before invoking it.
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 the schema already documents the parameters and their nested structure. The description only restates the overall target of the parameters and adds no syntax, precedence, or legacy-vs-modern guidance beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: setting field points and the field coordinate type. It distinguishes itself from related tools such as setting the number of fields, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling tool is appropriate for related field operations. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.