density_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that PyMOL levels are in sigma, that absolute levels are converted before reaching PyMOL, that EMDB depositions get a pointer with units named, and that the level is always reported in both units. This rich detail goes well beyond a basic 'draws a mesh' statement.

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, each earning its place: the main action, the problem it solves, and the operational requirement. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the core behavior, unit conversion, and the load_map prerequisite. Minor gaps include explicit error handling if the map is not loaded correctly, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'level' and 'units' by explaining the sigma/absolute distinction, conversion, and what happens when 'level' is omitted (1.5 sigma generic). This adds value beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Draw an isomesh around a selection, stating the contour level in both units,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It also uniquely highlights the dual-unit reporting, distinguishing it from sibling tools like isomesh and isosurface.

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 clearly states the prerequisite: 'Requires the map to have been loaded through load_map' and explains why. It also provides context about the sigma vs absolute discrepancy with EMDB, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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