cinematic_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains visual changes (shadows, fog, material properties) but does not disclose whether the modifications are reversible, affect the entire scene, or require specific prerequisites.

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 concise (three sentences plus an Args line), front-loading the purpose and visual effect. It could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the visual outcome and typical use case. It does not cover prerequisites or state persistence, but these are minor omissions for a configuration tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section with an example ('e.g., 1abc') adds minimal value. For a single parameter, the description barely extends beyond the schema's type and title.

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 configures PyMOL for a cinematic look with dramatic lighting, emphasizing volume and scale. Among many sibling view tools (bfactor_view, electrostatic_view, etc.), it distinguishes itself by focusing on aesthetic depth-cueing and dramatic presentation of large complexes.

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 explicitly targets massive complexes like ribosomes or viral capsids, implying when to use the cinematic view. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative views for other scenarios.

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