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. It clearly states the visual output: chain colors, interface representation as surface patch with sticks, and H-bonds as dashes. This gives the agent a good understanding of what the tool will display, though it does not explicitly state that the tool creates a new view or modifies the scene.

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 very concise: a one-sentence purpose, a sentence describing visual details, and a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 that there is an output schema (content unknown) and no annotations, the description covers the visual result well. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist) or whether it returns anything, but for a visualization tool this is sufficient completeness.

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 0% description coverage (only titles). The description's Args section adds concrete meaning: 'obj_name: PyMOL object name (e.g. "1abc")', 'chain_a: First chain ID (e.g. "A")', 'chain_b: Second chain ID (e.g. "B")'. This provides essential context beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a clear statement of purpose: 'Highlights the protein-protein binding interface between two chains.' This specifies the verb (highlights) and resource (interface between two chains), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like electrostatic_view or ligand_view, which focus on different visualizations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools for related tasks (e.g., mutation_view or pocket_view). The agent must infer usage purely from the purpose statement.

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