renderer_capture_viewmode

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions switching the viewport and saving a PNG, and includes a restore_viewmode parameter that restores the previous mode. However, it does not state whether the viewport remains changed if restore is false, nor does it mention failure conditions or side effects on the scene. The core behavior is disclosed, but additional context (e.g., that the viewport is temporarily altered) would be helpful.

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 efficient: a clear opening sentence, a concise list of supported viewmodes, parameter explanations, a KB reference, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids verbosity. The list of viewmodes is necessary and adds value, and the example is helpful despite using a placeholder value.

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 is relatively simple and the description covers the main action, parameters, and gives a default path. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open viewport) or error handling, but the KB reference offers additional context. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though a note on preconditions would round it out.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains each parameter: viewmode (diagnostic viewmode to capture), filepath (optional path with a default), and restore_viewmode (restore after capture). This adds essential semantics beyond the bare schema, making it fully self-contained for the agent.

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 action: switching the active level viewport to a diagnostic viewmode and saving a PNG. It lists the specific supported viewmodes, making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling screenshot tools because it targets diagnostic viewmodes rather than generic captures.

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 implies when to use this tool (to capture diagnostic viewmodes) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like take_screenshot or viewport_capture_screenshot. It provides a clear functional purpose but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing. A brief mention of 'for standard screenshots use take_screenshot' would improve it.

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