ligand_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It details the visual output (protein, pocket residues, ligand display, H-bonds, labels, zoom) but does not disclose potential side effects like scene modifications or selection changes.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose. It uses efficient sentences to describe the visualization details, though some formatting could be improved for readability.

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 an output schema exists and the tool is a view modifier, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the provided details are sufficient for a visualization 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that obj_name is a PyMOL object name and ligand_resn is a 3-letter residue name, including examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification.

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 clearly states that the tool shows a binding-site view focused on a ligand, and provides specific details about the rendering (cartoon protein, stick residues, yellow dashes for H-bonds) that distinguish it from sibling tools like pocket_view or interface_view.

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 implies the tool is for visualizing ligand binding sites but does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools (e.g., pocket_view) nor provide conditions for when to use it over alternatives.

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