capture_pane_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains important edge cases: save_path=None avoids disk writes and uses QBuffer for size estimation, fit_contents=True triggers alignment via homeAll()/home(), responses go through apply_response_cap, and environments without PySide return a _warning dict. These details go well beyond a simple statement of 'capture screenshot'.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and subsequent sentences each add essential behavioral details without redundancy. The line breaks improve readability, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions apply_response_cap and the _warning dict fallback, but does not describe the success response structure (e.g., image data, file path, or size_bytes format). Additionally, the 'ctx' parameter remains unexplained, making the description incomplete for fully invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains three of four parameters: pane_type_name must be a valid hou.paneTabType property, save_path=None indicates no disk persistence, and fit_contents=True controls view alignment. However, it omits any explanation for the 'ctx' parameter, leaving its purpose and format unclear.

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 a specified pane type, listing examples (NetworkEditor, SceneViewer, etc.) and explicitly mentions 30 types. This distinguishes it from sibling capture tools like capture_multiple_panes, which captures multiple panes. The verb 'capture' and resource 'pane' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives parameter behaviors but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capture_multiple_panes or render_* tools. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the selection criteria implicit.

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