optics_lens_optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the soft dependency ('Requires the optics extra; degrades to {ok:false, reason, install} otherwise') and the return shape including before/after metrics. It does not disclose convergence failure modes or rate/time behavior for the optimization loop.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and constraint, then structured parameter definitions. Slightly dense but each line earns its place; no redundant padding.

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 7-param optimization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key parameters, the optional dependency behavior, and the return payload. It is nearly complete; missing only how surfaces/wavelengths/field_angles interact with optimization scope and any convergence/iteration caveats.

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 0% and the description compensates thoroughly, defining `variables` element structure ({type:'radius'|'thickness', surface:<1-based int>}), `targets` shape with operand enum examples, and `maxiter` semantics. This goes well beyond the bare property names in 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Optimize a SEQUENTIAL optical system with optiland's optimizer'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming optics_lens_design for the surface schema and explicitly notes the capability rayoptics lacks, separating it from optics_raytrace.

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?

Implies usage via reference to optics_lens_design for surfaces and by framing it as the sequential optimization path. However it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. optics_solid_trace or optics_raytrace, leaving some inference to the agent.

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