Tde Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read, but it doesn't state whether a file must be open, whether it reflects enabled/disabled operands, whether it is read-only, or anything about the response shape, all of which matter for a summary 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back and under what preconditions. It only names two noun categories ('operands and bounds') and leaves the structure of the returned tolerance operands and bounds, plus any file-state requirements, entirely unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return tolerance operands and bounds'), expanding the cryptic 'TDE' name into its domain meaning. It is clearer than a bare name restatement and does implicitly distinguish it from zemax_lde_summary/zemax_mce_summary by naming 'tolerance' operands, but it never explicitly contrasts with those sibling summary tools.

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 statement of when to call this versus zemax_tolerance_wizard, zemax_run_tolerancing, or the other *_summary siblings. The only usage signal is the word 'tolerance', leaving the agent to infer the TDE context on its own.

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