Interact with the open document viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool drives the existing viewer, that highlight_text auto-finds text geometry, and warns that calling view_document again opens a separate viewer. It could elaborate on error behavior or reversibility, but it gives meaningful context beyond a minimal 'interact' statement.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence delivers essential information: what the tool does, the required context, batching, and a critical anti-pattern. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a complete orientation: it tells the agent where the viewer comes from, how to identify it, how to batch actions, and what to avoid. It leverages the schema for parameter details and focuses on non-obvious aspects, making it sufficient for effective invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between document_id and view_uuid/viewUUID, clarifying the 'pdf-server-style' arguments for highlight_text, and noting that commands/actions enable ordered batching. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 drives an already-open document viewer, listing specific actions (navigate, highlight node, auto-highlight text). It distinguishes itself from the sibling view_document by explicitly warning against using that tool for navigation, which would open a separate viewer.

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?

It specifies the prerequisite (user already has a viewer open from view_document) and instructs to pass document_id plus view_uuid or viewUUID. It explicitly tells when to use commands/actions for ordered batches and provides a clear 'do NOT call view_document again' exclusion, giving strong guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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