align_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the visual overlay (purple dashed lines at 0%/100%/key heights), the fitting rule (top/bottom view scaled to front/back width), and the textual output content (dimensions, proportions, mismatches). It still omits failure modes (e.g. what happens with fewer than 2 views or mismatched labels) and 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?

Front-loaded with the effect, then the overlay semantics, then per-parameter notes under clear 'views:/labels:/method:' labels. Dense but each section earns its place; the intermediate overlay explanation is slightly verbose relative to its decision 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what the text report contains. All three parameters are explained and the required/optional split (only views is required) is discoverable from the schema. Remaining gap is the absence of error/edge-case behavior, minor for a read-only alignment utility.

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% and the schema is bare (array of strings, plain string), yet the description documents all three parameters: views with its four path syntaxes («путь», «путь|N», «путь|0», «путь|x1,y1,x2,y2»), the accepted label vocabulary, and method's role. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (выровнять виды / align views) and immediately explains the concrete effect: background removed, uniform object height, common baseline. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as split_views, compare_views, or export_views, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: labels are described as enabling server-side pair checks (спереди ↔ сзади, слева ↔ справа), and method is pointed at 'как в silhouette'. There is no explicit 'use this when / not when' or named alternative for competing tools, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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