unreal_take_screenshot

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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing the asynchronous write behavior: the path is returned before the image is on disk, so the caller must wait. It also explains the return format and the meaning of its fields, which helps the agent interpret the result correctly. No annotation is contradicted.

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: a one-sentence summary, a note on asynchronous behavior, a brief Args section, a Returns block, and an Examples section. Every block earns its place, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but remains tight and scannable.

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 description covers all information needed to call the tool correctly: the purpose, a prerequisite, the three modifiable parameters with defaults and ranges, the exact asynchronous caveat, and a complete return contract including failure strings. The output schema is also described. There are no gaps that would cause an agent to mis-call it.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (filename, width, height), including an example path and bounds, so the description's Arg list largely restates this. Still, the description adds the default values and range constraints in a convenient summary, but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema offers. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a high-resolution screenshot of the editor viewport to a PNG file.' This clearly identifies the action and output, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like unreal_set_viewport_camera (which frames the shot) and unreal_execute_python (a general command channel). No ambiguity remains.

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 tool explicitly states when to use it ('producing a visual check of the level after placing actors') and when not to ('you need a final production render'), and names the alternative (unreal_execute_python). It also gives a prerequisite hint to frame the shot first with unreal_set_viewport_camera. This is model guidance for selection.

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