cd

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds nothing about the key behavioral consequence — that subsequent relative paths resolve from the new directory — which is instead only conveyed by the schema. It also does not say what happens on an invalid path.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. It is terse to the point of omission but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, so return-value explanation is not needed. Still, for a state-changing tool that alters path resolution for all later calls, the description should mention that downstream effect and error behavior, which it omits.

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 100% and the path parameter already documents that PyMOL resolves relative paths from the new directory. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution semantics beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('changes') and resource ('current directory'), making the effect unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like pwd or ls. However, it offers no explicit differentiation language against those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how this interacts with siblings such as pwd, ls, or relative-path loading. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name.

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