chimerax_rich_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that HTML is passed through with is_html=True, warns about trusted input, notes that the title is escaped, and explains save/overwrite behavior. This is strong disclosure for a write operation.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a security note, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence is purposeful, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, security implications, parameter semantics, and return status. The presence of an output schema means detailed return-value descriptions are unnecessary. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully compensates by defining all five parameters: html, level (with allowed values), title, save_html_path, and overwrite. It adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, such as the escaping behavior of title and the replacement logic for overwrite.

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 begins with a specific action verb 'Write' and a clear resource 'the ChimeraX Log', and further specifies 'trusted HTML'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chimerax_run or chimerax_rich_report by identifying the exact destination and content type.

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 security note 'Only use with trusted input' provides an explicit usage condition. The overall context clearly indicates this tool is for writing rich HTML to the ChimeraX log, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, the context is sufficiently clear.

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