ligand_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the visual behavior: protein cartoon, pocket residue stick style and coloring, ligand thick sticks, H-bond yellow dashes, residue labels, and auto-zoom. This is comprehensive for a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences long, immediately states the main purpose, and then provides compact, information-dense details about the visualization. No filler or redundancy; every detail serves a purpose.

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 tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the visual result will be. It explains the rendering, labeling, and zoom behavior, giving the agent complete expectations for the output.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new syntax or format details for obj_name or ligand_resn, but does reinforce that ligand_resn identifies the ligand and that pocket residues are selected by 5Å proximity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Shows a binding-site view focused on a ligand' with a specific verb ('Shows'), resource ('binding-site view'), and scope ('focused on a ligand'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling view tools by emphasizing the ligand-centric visualization and providing detailed rendering specifics.

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 clear context: this tool is for visualizing a ligand binding site, including pocket residues and H-bonds. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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