Optics Lens Design

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds material behavior: dependency gating, degradation to {ok:false, reason, install}, single-lens validation against an oracle, and the exact return dict. This is significant context beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but well-structured: purpose first, then dependency, parameter walkthrough in aligned backticks, then return shape. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

No output schema and minimal annotations, so the description compensates well by documenting returns, defaults, and constraints. The only notable gap is the undocumented want_spot parameter and slight unit ambiguities (e.g., epd units), making it very close to complete but not flawless.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for surfaces (sub-fields, stop constraint), epd/fno mutual-exclusion, wavelengths defaults, field angles default, and image_solve behavior. However, the want_spot parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of seven parameters unexplained.

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-resource pair: 'First-order + spot analysis of a SEQUENTIAL optical system with optiland'. This enables differentiation from siblings like optics_lens_optimize and optics_raytrace. The qualifiers (SEQUENTIAL, optiland) make the scope precise.

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?

Provides clear context: what the tool analyzes, the dependency prerequisite ('Requires the optics extra'), and the degradation contract if missing. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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