shape_screen

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it ranks structures, writes results to a .maegz file with Shape_Sim scores, is asynchronous (returns job_id), and requires prepped 3D inputs. With no annotations, it covers the major behavioral traits but omits details like whether input files are modified or any permission requirements.

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 extraneous information. The first sentence clearly states the action and result, and the second adds critical context (file requirements, asynchrony, output format). Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 and 4 parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool. It covers input format, process, output location, and side effects (long-running). The only gap is the undocumented njobs parameter, but overall the description is complete enough for effective use.

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 description explains query_path and screen_path as 3D structure files and links jobname to output naming, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, njobs (a parameter) is not described, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 performs shape-based similarity screening, ranking structures by shape similarity to a query. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like glide_dock (docking) or compute_descriptors (descriptors), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 some usage context, noting that both inputs must be 3D structure files and that ligands should be prepared first. It also mentions the tool is long-running and returns a job_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use shape_screen vs. sitemap or confgen), leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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