Skip to main content
Glama
akontadakis
by akontadakis

lm83_daylight

Computes IES LM-83 sDA and ASE metrics with mandatory operable blinds, using three-phase simulation per window group and reporting blind hours and conformance conditions.

Instructions

IES LM-83-12 sDA(300/50%) and ASE(1000,250h) with MANDATORY operable blinds.

Unlike annual_daylight, which computes the arithmetic of sDA/ASE on whatever shading the scene happens to contain, this runs LM-83's method: a three-phase (V.T.D.s) engine per window group, an hourly blind that closes when 2.2.6's direct-sun trigger fires, and a zero-bounce ASE pass with blinds retracted and no sky or ground (3.2.6, 3.3).

obj_path + material_map: the same OBJ room and material mapping import_geometry takes. Glazing must be mapped {"type": "glass", "tvis": ...} -- window groups are formed from those faces, and with no glass face there is no window to operate.

units (mm|cm|m|ft) and up_axis (Y|Z) describe the OBJ, defaulting to metres and Z-up; north_angle_deg is the clockwise azimuth post-remap +Y points toward. These decide the facade azimuths that window grouping keys on, so a wrong up_axis silently regroups the windows.

points: inline rows or a .pts path, OR sensor_set='name'. Grid spacing, workplane height and wall offset are MEASURED from these coordinates and reported, never accepted as parameters.

areas: 2.2.6 trigger areas, [{name, area_m2, point_indices}], split by facade orientation and each under 10,000 sf -- the trigger must hold in EVERY area, and pooling facades dilutes the fraction so blinds close later than the standard requires. Omit and pass floor_area_m2 to get a single whole-grid area, which is only correct for a single-facade space. An area over 10,000 sf is refused before any Radiance runs.

blind: the operable shade, per 2.2.7. Omitted -> the unknown-shade default of 5% diffuse VLT. {"shade_type": "fabric", "vlt": .., "openness": ..}, {"shade_type": "louver", "reflectance": >0.8} for the 20% white-louver branch, or {"bsdf": "path.xml"} for a measured Klems file. Note the default is 5%, NOT 20% -- the 20% figure is the louver branch and needs a declared reflectance.

window_groups: optionally declare grouping instead of auto-clustering by azimuth and plane, [{name, face_indices, role}] with role 'view' or 'clerestory' -- 2.2.6 asks that view groups close before clerestory ones, and role cannot be inferred from azimuth.

declared_no_blinds: assert the design documents state no blinds (2.2.6's escape clause). Reported as a per-group condition; it never replaces the headline, which always operates blinds.

Returns metrics (sDA, ASE, per_point_DA, conditions) plus blind_hours and the window groups. The conformance flag is lm83_method_conformant and is presently ALWAYS FALSE: 2.2.8-2.2.11's model-input clauses (dirt depreciation, frame occlusion, reveals, obstructions, interior reflectance defaults, mandatory furniture) are out of scope, so glazing runs at its raw tvis and sDA is biased upward -- roughly 32% of transmitted flux on an unknown-frame vertical window. Read metrics.conditions.departures before quoting a number; this is not by itself an LM-83 or LEED submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNo
weaYes
areasNo
blindNo
unitsNom
pointsNo
qualityNo
up_axisNoZ
d_paramsNo
latitudeNo
obj_pathYes
v_paramsNo
work_dirNo
sensor_setNo
material_mapYes
floor_area_m2No
window_groupsNo
north_angle_degNo
declared_no_blindsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conformance flag is always false, the bias from missing frame occlusion, the blind default (5% not 20%), and the area pooling dilution effect. It also explains the three-phase engine and blind trigger behavior. All critical behavioral traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but each sentence earns its place. It is organized into clear paragraphs by parameter group, front-loads the core purpose and sibling distinction, then dives into details. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence adds critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (19 params, no schema descriptions, complex standard compliance), the description covers all needed aspects: engine method, parameter semantics, defaults, constraints, output structure (metrics, conditions, conformance flag), and limitations. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description provides the required behavioral and usage context fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain every parameter. It does: obj_path, material_map (including glazing mapping requirements), units/up_axis/north_angle_deg (with consequences of wrong values), points/sensor_set, areas (with constraints and fallback), blind (including subtypes and defaults), window_groups, and declared_no_blinds. Each parameter's purpose and constraints are described in detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes IES LM-83-12 sDA/ASE with mandatory blinds, and explicitly contrasts it with annual_daylight, which computes arithmetic sDA/ASE on the scene's existing shading. This distinguishes the tool from its sibling and specifies the exact resource and verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Unlike annual_daylight...' and explains when to use this tool vs. the sibling. It also gives conditions for using areas, blinds, window_groups, and declared_no_blinds, and warns about pooling facades and area size limits. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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