flexsim_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that method='printwindow' works while the window is covered, and that view3d relies on fixed VIEW3D_CROP fractions that can miss the view if panels are moved. These are real behavioral caveats beyond structured fields, though it doesn't say what the call returns (file path vs image bytes).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then parameters are grouped in an Args block with defaults and ranges. Every line is useful, though the view3d crop caveat runs a bit long and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, yet the description covers purpose, all params, and failure modes of the capture methods. The main remaining gap is not stating the return form of the screenshot, which an agent might want before calling.

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% and the input schema gives no per-property descriptions, so the description must compensate—and it does, documenting all four params: region (window vs view3d semantics), scale range and default, format options, and method options with behavioral notes. This adds substantial meaning over the bare enum patterns.

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 ('Take a picture of the FlexSim window') and immediately frames the goal ('so you can SEE the model'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like flexsim_read_console or flexsim_inspect_model, and it names flexsim_set_view as the framing-related relative.

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 conditional guidance: use region='view3d' for a bigger 3D-only crop, but fall back to region='window' when the UI is rearranged. It also routes to flexsim_set_view for framing hints. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the selection logic between the two regions is well covered.

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