util_cbas

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the core recoloring action but does not mention whether existing colors are overridden, how the 'selection' parameter affects scope, or any side effects. The phrase 'Colors by atom' is too vague to convey full behavioral implications.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but the parenthetical '(Color By Atom, Salmon)' is redundant and adds no value. It is not structured to front-load key information effectively, and the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks usage context and behavioral disclaimers. It does not explain the full coloring scheme or how it interacts with selections, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'selection' parameter, including its default and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters well.

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 'Colors by atom, salmon carbons' clearly identifies a coloring operation with a specific resource (atoms) and a specific effect (carbons colored salmon). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that color by chain or residue, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other coloring utilities (e.g., util_cbc, util_chainbow, util_color_by_element). The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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