clip

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create a clipped visualization' without explaining what happens (e.g., whether the data is modified or just the view), side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 only 2 words, which is overly terse. While concise, it lacks essential front-loaded information. Every sentence should earn its place, and a single sentence is acceptable, but here it provides too little context to be useful.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for such a complex tool. It does not explain what a 'clipped visualization' is, what the output looks like, or how parameters interact. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the description alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the verb 'create clipped visualization'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds no value.

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 'Create a clipped visualization.' gives a verb and resource but is vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'slice' or 'contour', which could also involve clipping or cutting. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as 'slice' and 'pv_isosurface' exist but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided. The agent has no context for choosing this tool.

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