generate_glide_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is long-running, returns a job_id, and the grid lands in the job directory. It explains the two binding-site specification methods. However, it does not mention return value format, potential errors (e.g., if both center and ligand_ref are given), or any permissions needed.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, site specification options, and behavior note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be more complete. It lacks explanation for required 'receptor_path' and the numeric parameters 'inner_box' and 'outer_box' (units, defaults). It also does not specify what happens if both center and ligand_ref are provided (likely an error or one takes precedence). The return value is mentioned as job_id but not structured.

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%, so the description should compensate. It explains 'center' and 'ligand_ref' (with syntax hints) and mentions 'grid_name'. But it does not explain 'receptor_path', 'inner_box', or 'outer_box'—leaving these to the schema titles. The description adds value for two parameters but not the rest.

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 it builds a Glide docking grid from a prepared receptor, specifying the binding-site center via 'center' or 'ligand_ref'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like glide_dock, which uses the grid, and other unrelated tools.

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: use this tool to build a grid from a prepared receptor, with two ways to specify the binding site. It mentions it's long-running and returns a job_id, and that the grid is for glide_dock. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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