rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the primary behavior (regenerates displayed geometry) and the parameter description gives a trigger condition, but it does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or what precisely gets rebuilt beyond the selection parameter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('Regenerates all displayed geometry') that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, making the description adequately informative for basic use. However, the phrase 'all displayed geometry' could mislead users into thinking selection is ignored; while the schema clarifies this, a more complete description would explicitly mention the selection override. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'selection' parameter, with a clear explanation ('What to regenerate. Needed after altering coordinates or B-factors...'). The main description does not add additional parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('regenerates') and the target ('all displayed geometry'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refresh' or 'redraw', and the term 'all' might obscure the optional selection parameter.

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 parameter description provides clear context: 'Needed after altering coordinates or B-factors for the change to show.' This signals when the tool is appropriate, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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