inspect_cif

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details: it flags common pitfalls like no charges, non-neutral cell, and atom overlap. It also lists what it inspects. While it doesn't discuss permissions or output format, for a read-only inspection tool the behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences: the first lists what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's function and when to use it. It could mention the return format, but the lack is not critical for such a straightforward inspection tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain the parameter, but the parameter name 'cif_path' and title 'Cif Path' make its meaning clear. The description adds no extra semantics beyond mentioning 'CIF file', so it meets the baseline but does not compensate further.

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 inspects a CIF file and enumerates specific attributes (formula, cell parameters, charge column status, minimum interatomic distance) and flags pitfalls. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on simulations, force fields, and output parsing.

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 states when to use it: 'Use before launching a simulation against an unfamiliar CIF.' This provides clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same inspection role, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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