crosslink_view

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

No annotations provided. Description covers visual behavior (appearance of backbone, side chains, bonds, metals, background) but does not disclose potential side effects like modifying the object or whether it's read-only. For a view tool, it's partially adequate but lacks safety information.

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?

Description is concise: one paragraph explaining visual elements followed by the parameter. No superfluous information, well-organized.

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 tool complexity is low (single parameter, view-only), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing object), return values (though output schema exists), and whether changes are permanent.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'obj_name' as a PyMOL object name with an example, adding meaning beyond the schema's raw type.

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?

Description clearly states it highlights structural cross-links (disulfide bonds, metals, coordination) and lists specific visual elements (yellow sticks for cysteines, yellow dashes for disulfides, orange spheres for metals, dashed lines for coordination). This differentiates it from other view tools like cartoon or ligand_view.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies it's for visualizing crosslinks, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different views.

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