prime_mmgbsa

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is long-running, returns a job_id, and output structures contain the binding free energy. This covers async behavior and output format, though it does not mention cancellation or side effects.

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 two sentences with no redundancy, front-loading the purpose and then adding key details. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description leaves gaps: it explains only one parameter, does not cover error handling, prerequisites, or how to retrieve results beyond mentioning job_id. More detail is needed for completeness.

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 explain parameters. It only describes input_path (file format), but does not explain ligand_asl or minimize (e.g., when to set them, what they control). This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 rescored a receptor-ligand complex or Glide pose-viewer file with Prime MM-GBSA to estimate binding free energy. It specifies input formats and output, distinguishing it from siblings like compute_descriptors or glide_dock.

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 implies it is for rescoring docking poses via the mention of Glide pose-viewer files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_descriptors or analyze_interactions, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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