sasa

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral trait 'per frame' (iterating over trajectory frames), which is beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like error conditions or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a specific detail about the probe radius parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover return value format and key parameter details. It only addresses 'srad' and the concept of per-frame calculation. Missing details on default selection, required structure, optional trajectory, and expected output shape (e.g., a value per frame or total) make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'srad' (probe radius, default 1.4 A) but fails to describe the other three parameters (selection, structure, trajectory). This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent, as key inputs are undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool computes solvent-accessible surface area for a given selection per frame, specifying the unit (Angstrom^2). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like distance or rmsd, which compute different properties.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for use, and no exclusions. It only defines what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness without context on limitations or preferences.

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