show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the exclusive 'only=True' behavior, but this is already fully described in the schema parameter comment. It does not disclose other side effects such as whether existing representations are preserved or removed, session-state impact, or return behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a useful parenthetical about the only flag, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with only 3 parameters, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present, the description plus schema are adequate. It could be more helpful with explicit usage directions or a note about interactions with other representation tools, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it only mentions 'selection' generically without elaborating on the representation enum or the selection syntax.

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 identifies the action ('Show') and the resource ('a molecular representation') plus the scope ('for a selection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hide by directly stating the opposite behavior, and the parenthetical about only=True adds 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?

The description implies usage for showing representations on selected atoms, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hide or color. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions beyond the inline only=True nuance.

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