bfactor_view

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the visual outcome (blue-white-red gradient), the representation used (cartoon), and the background (black), so the agent knows what state the viewer ends up in. It does not say whether the coloring overwrites existing representations or that restore_bfactors exists to undo it, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the color legend is compact and directly useful for interpreting output. Every line earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating 'low B' and 'high B' alongside the color names.

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 one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does and what the result looks like, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The missing piece is the side effect on existing object representations and how to reverse it.

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 100% and the single obj_name parameter is documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no meaning about the target object beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Colors the structure by crystallographic B-factor (temperature factor).' That distinguishes it from property-coloring siblings like plddt_view or occupancy_view on the resource alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It offers concrete use cases ('identifying dynamic loops, disordered termini, and rigid structural cores'), which is real context rather than none. However, it never states when to prefer plddt_view or conservation_view instead, nor any prerequisite such as the structure actually carrying B-factor values, so guidance is implied only.

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