interface_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation signal is already present. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: chain A is marine blue, chain B is salmon, interface residues are selected within 4Å and shown as a solid surface patch with sticks, and H-bonds appear as yellow dashes. It does not say whether existing representations are replaced or what objects/selections get created, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with rendering details following in a compact block. Nearly every sentence carries visual information the agent could not get from the schema, though the H-bond color note is cosmetic rather than decision-relevant.

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?

With only three required string parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It still leaves gaps: no mention that a multi-chain object must be loaded first, no statement of whether prior representations persist, and no differentiation from interface_report given the very large sibling set.

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%, so all three parameters (obj_name, chain_a, chain_b) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only an indirect hint about chain_a vs chain_b by assigning them colors, but never explains how chain ordering affects the output or what to do if a chain ID is absent.

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 and resource: 'Highlights the protein-protein binding interface between two chains.' An agent can tell this is a visualization tool rather than a data-reporting one. However, it never names the closely related sibling 'interface_report', so the view-vs-report distinction must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'between two chains' — the agent must infer that a structure with at least two chains must already be loaded. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative (interface_report) for textual rather than visual output.

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