pocket_view

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds real behavioral detail: it defines the pocket as all residues within 5 Å of the ligand, states the coloring scheme by chemical character, and enumerates the representations produced (surface, sidechain sticks, yellow ligand sticks, cyan H-bond dashes, grey cartoon). It does not say whether existing representations are replaced or what object name the new visualization receives, which is the main remaining gap for a session-mutating 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and each following sentence covers one visual element. The color/representation catalogue is somewhat lengthy but every line describes a distinct rendered feature, so little 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent still needs: the pocket selection criterion and the full visual result. Only the side effects on existing scene objects are left unstated.

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%, so both obj_name and resn are already documented in the schema. The description adds the meaningful context that resn identifies the ligand whose 5 Å neighborhood defines the pocket, but says nothing extra about obj_name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb+resource: "Visualizes the binding pocket cavity around a ligand as a colored surface." An agent immediately knows this renders a pocket surface for a given ligand. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings such as ligand_view or hydrophobic_surface_view, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The scenario (a loaded object containing a ligand) is only inferable from the parameter requirements, and nothing tells the agent whether to pick this over ligand_view or hydrophobic_surface_view for a similar inspection task.

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