chimerax_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the operations performed: hides pseudobonds, atoms, and surfaces, shows cartoon representation, applies heteroatom coloring and soft lighting, and fits the view. It also clearly states the return value (summary of reset commands executed), which adds transparency about output. However, it does not mention potential side effects like whether the session state is permanently altered or if the camera/scene is fully reset beyond what is listed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of actions and a return value section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear reset operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, the visual result, and the return value. There is no missing critical context that would prevent an agent from using it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is consistent with that—it doesn't introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('display'), and details the exact actions taken: hiding pseudobonds, atoms, and surfaces, then showing cartoon representation with heteroatom coloring, soft lighting, and view fitting. This distinguishes it from siblings like chimerax_view or chimerax_turn by focusing on resetting to a clean default state.

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 clear context of what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for resetting the display to a clean state, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools for specific scenarios. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of chimerax_view' or 'when you need to clear the scene'.

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