blender_get_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format or side effects), but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations, the description's lack of extra behavioral disclosure is acceptable but not enhancing.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second sentence gives the usage context, and the remaining lines concisely explain key parameters in a bullet-like format. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no fluff.

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 read-only screenshot tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly describe the output image, but that is implied by the tool name and purpose. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention output format or dimensions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical parameters: elevation and azimuth with degree ranges, and focus_object/isolate for framing and isolation. More common parameters like width/height/zoom remain self-explanatory from names/types, so the description adds significant value without covering every parameter.

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's purpose: 'Single screenshot from a custom camera angle.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool render_tiled by explicitly saying 'Use when render_tiled's 4 fixed views miss what you need,' which is a specific verb+resource+differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when render_tiled's 4 fixed views miss what you need' names the alternative and when to choose this tool. It also gives parameter-specific guidance for elevation, azimuth, and focus_object/isolate, making the invocation conditions clear.

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