textbook_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool transforms the structure into a bold 2D style, hides interior complexities, and styles ligands similarly. This is adequate for a non-destructive visual preset, though it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., altering existing settings).

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by details on appearance and a simple args section. It is concise without being overly terse, though some phrases could be trimmed.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the visual transformation and the role of the parameter. No critical gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% description coverage and the only parameter obj_name is described merely as 'PyMOL object name (e.g. `1abc`)'. This adds little beyond the schema's type 'string'. More detail (e.g., required format, error behavior if object missing) would improve semantics.

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 a specific visual style ('crisp, cel-shaded illustrative look') and elaborates on the effects (bold outlines, solid white cartoon). It distinguishes itself in purpose among siblings as a preset view, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other view tools.

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 usage for presentations or textbook diagrams but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other views (e.g., cinematic_view, pointillist_view). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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