catia_screenshot

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: rendering is performed by CATIA itself so it is correct even when CATIA is behind other windows, and viewer mode silently coerces a .png path to .jpg. These are exactly the kind of gotchas annotations cannot convey.

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?

One compact, front-loaded paragraph with each mode labeled; no filler sentences. Slightly dense and the 'Capture CATIA.' opener is terse, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return artifact (file path, image format, format coercion) adequately. It omits any note on connection prerequisites or overwrite behavior for an existing file_path, which would round out a capture 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 50% and the enum for 'mode' has no per-value description. The description supplies the missing meaning for both values, states the default, and notes the output format implications (PNG vs JPG/BMP/TIFF), which the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Capture CATIA') and immediately distinguishes two capture modes with precise scope: 'window' = whole CATIA window incl. spec tree, 'viewer' = only the 3D view. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like catia_set_view, catia_fit_all, or drawing_render without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing between modes, including the purpose-driven hint that 'window' is what report screenshots need. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as drawing_render, but the mode-selection guidance is concrete and actionable.

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