chimerax_structure_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains how UniProt positions are mapped to ChimeraX residue specs via chain_mappings, which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behaviors like saving HTML, altering the session, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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, with a clear first sentence and a focused technical paragraph on mapping details. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan.

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 14-parameter tool, the description covers only a small subset of functionality, omitting output options and other configuration. The output schema handles return values, but the lack of explanation for most parameters makes the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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 only explains external_features and chain_mappings, while the other 12 parameters (e.g., pdb_id, model_spec, theme, include_db_links) remain undocumented. This is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 renders a structure report with DB URLs and mapped feature links, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chimerax_view or chimerax_rich_report, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for using external_features and chain_mappings, implying this tool is appropriate when mapping external annotations to structure reports. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions but still offers useful guidance.

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