chemdraw_scan_scope

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by stating that it preserves the parent graph/stereo, retains alternative provenance for duplicates, and does not invent yields or reaction predictions. This adds valuable context about the tool's behavior beyond the annotation flags.

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 concise, with every sentence providing useful information. It front-loades the core function and then adds constraints and guidance. No fluff or redundant wording.

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 complexity (4 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what inputs are expected, how to select them, limitations, and what happens to the results. It even points to the next tool for output.

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 description explains what the parameters represent (explicit mapped H-bearing aromatic carbon sites, curated substituents, one site at a time) even though the schema provides no descriptions. It clarifies the meaning of 'site_atom_maps' as explicit mapping and 'substituents' as the curated list, which is essential given 0% 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 states the tool proposes substitutions at specific aromatic carbon sites, specifying the types of rings and substituents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'decorate_scope' and 'propose_scope' by emphasizing the offline, curated nature and the requirement for explicit mapped sites.

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 says to select explicit candidates and use draw_structures for native output, directing the agent to the appropriate next step. It also clarifies limitations (one site at a time, cap at 100 requests) which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others.

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