textbook_view

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

The description provides a detailed visual breakdown of the effects: sharp black outlines, solid white cartoon/surface, and opaque white sticks with outlines, which goes beyond the bare tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether settings are reversible, what exactly is toggled, or side effects on the object's existing representation, leaving some uncertainty.

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 composed of two compact sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail the visual style. It is efficient without excessive verbosity, though the second paragraph somewhat restates the style rather than adding new behavioral details.

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 single-parameter view tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the visual outcome and mentions ligands are also styled. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them. However, it does not address potential error conditions or whether prerequisites like an loaded object exist, but that is a minor gap.

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 input schema covers the only parameter 'obj_name' with a clear description, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool configures PyMOL for a 'textbook illustration' look, with a specific verb ('Configures') and resource (PyMOL style). It distinguishes itself from sibling view tools by describing the cel-shaded, illustrative style and specific visual elements, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions it is 'ideal for presentations or textbook-style diagrams,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficient for a style-specific view tool.

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