cinematic_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly mentions 'deep shadows, fog, depth-cueing', a 'dark background', and that 'Protein uses standard coloring but with altered material properties.' It does not describe reversibility or effects on other settings, but the main behavioral changes are transparently listed.

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 three sentences in two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, while the next two add illustrative detail and material specifics. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or unnecessary words.

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?

For a single-parameter configuration tool, the description covers the visual outcome, gives a concrete use case, and notes the change to material properties. It omits prerequisites (e.g., object must be loaded) or how to reset, but these are minor given the simple scope and the presence of an output schema.

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 only parameter 'obj_name' has a clear description ('PyMOL object name (e.g. "1abc")'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 depth-cued, cinematic look with dramatic lighting' — a specific verb, resource, and particular style. It distinguishes itself from sibling view tools by describing a unique aesthetic (shadows, fog, dark background), so there is no ambiguity about what it does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it 'emphasizes volume and scale' and is suited for 'massive complexes (like ribosomes or viral capsids)' to look dramatic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is well implied.

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