capture_view

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the capture reflects whatever viewpoint, active elements and result display the user has set and does not modify them, plus a hard 2000-pixel cap per dimension and the default-to-window-size behavior. The only tension is that readOnlyHint=false while the description stresses non-mutation, which is explainable by the POST endpoint but is not addressed.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded ahead of the sizing details. The mid-sentence line break between the first summary line and 'Shows the current view' slightly disrupts reading flow but costs no content.

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?

It correctly indicates the return is a PNG, which matters since there is no output schema. It is still incomplete for a tool with a required enum parameter: nothing explains what `product` selects or how it affects the captured view.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load: it gives units, the 2000-pixel maximum and the omit-for-default behavior for width and height. However, the required `product` parameter and its gen/civil enum are never mentioned, leaving a substantive gap.

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 and resource: produces a PNG image of the model window as NX currently displays it, with the underlying endpoint noted. No sibling tool does screen capture, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from read_model_info, show_result, and the other inspection tools.

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 makes clear this is a snapshot of the user's current view, not a configurable render, and tells the caller to omit width/height to get the window size. It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling competes for this purpose.

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