chemdraw_inspect_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior: 1-based indexing, the need to refresh after edits, the ChemDraw 23 ID caveat, and the explicit statement that atom-level chemistry is not returned. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core purpose, a usage caution, and an explicit scope boundary.

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 read-only inspection tool with a single obvious parameter, the description covers purpose, index semantics, refresh expectations, a known compatibility issue, and what it does not return. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it never explicitly explains the document_id parameter. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the tool description makes it clear which document is inspected, so the gap is not severe.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('1-based molecule indices/bounds and document settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling inspect tools like chemdraw_inspect_symbols and chemdraw_inspect_annotations. The explicit exclusion of atom-level chemistry further sharpens its scope.

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?

Provides practical usage context: refresh indices after edits, and notes ChemDraw 23 has broken native molecule IDs, implying when to rely on this tool's indices. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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