interface_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides rich visual details (colors, surface patch, sticks, H-bonds within 4Å) that let the agent predict the output. It does not mention potential side effects like modifying existing representations or creating objects, but for a visualization tool this is a minor gap, and the description is otherwise transparent about what the user will see.

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: a clear main purpose followed by two compact sentences of visual specifics. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the low parameter count and high schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains both the purpose and the visual result, and the output schema presumably provides return details. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., both chains must exist in the same object), but this is not a significant gap for a simple view 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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that chain_a appears in marine blue, chain_b in salmon, and that interface residues are within 4Å of the partner chain. This helps the agent understand how the chain parameters are used in the visual output.

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 'Highlights the protein-protein binding interface between two chains,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling view tools like ligand_view, pocket_view, and bfactor_view by focusing specifically on the protein-protein interface between two chains.

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 implied from the purpose statement (use when you want to visualize an interface), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like interface_report or contact_report. The description doesn't provide when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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