ligand_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by detailing the exact representation it produces, the 5Å pocket cutoff, H-bond detection, labeling, and the automatic zoom to the ligand. It does not say whether existing representations are hidden, cleared, or left in place, which is the main remaining gap for a scene-modifying view tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining lines are short, concrete rendering facts with no filler. A slightly tighter grouping of the representation details would make it a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter view tool with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies enough detail about the resulting scene to call it confidently. The only omission is the effect on pre-existing scene content.

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% with only two required parameters, so the schema already documents obj_name and ligand_resn with examples. The description adds the 5Å definition of 'pocket' and implies the ligand selection semantics, but does not explain how ligand_resn resolves when multiple copies exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Shows a binding-site view focused on a ligand'), and the following lines spell out exactly what is rendered (cartoon protein, pocket residues within 5Å, ligand sticks, H-bond dashes, zoom). An agent can tell this is a ligand-centric visualization. It stops short of naming how it differs from near-neighbors such as pocket_view or interface_view, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (pocket_view, interface_view, bfactor_view, etc.) nor any prerequisites such as the object needing to already be loaded with a ligand present. Usage is only inferable 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.