blender_get_viewport_screenshot

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details such as OpenGL rendering, inline image return, and error-string fallback, which are not in the annotations and are valuable for invocation.

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 well-structured with a short purpose, method, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool, the description covers what it does, how it renders, what it returns, and what happens on failure. The supported annotations and clear sibling context make this sufficiently complete for correct 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?

The schema already documents max_size as the maximum width or height in pixels, so the description adds little beyond repeating the default value (800) and providing an example. It does not compensate significantly for the low schema description coverage at the top level, but the nested schema is informative.

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 captures a screenshot of the current Blender 3D viewport using OpenGL. This distinguishes it from the sibling blender_render_image, which likely renders final images, by emphasizing the live viewport context.

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 clear context: 'Great for inspecting the current state of the scene visually.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied and distinct from a formal render.

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