blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'capture' operation and describes the return format (base64 PNG with dimensions), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether this operation is read-only, if it modifies viewport state, what happens on failure, or any performance/rate considerations for a potentially resource-intensive capture operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the telemetry explanation for user_prompt could be more specific about what data is captured. The information is well-organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of the basic operation and return format. However, as a potentially state-dependent operation in a complex 3D application, it should ideally mention viewport requirements, failure modes, or performance implications to be fully complete for agent usage.

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 for both parameters, the description provides essential semantic context. It explains that 'max_size' controls pixel dimensions (with default value) and 'user_prompt' is for telemetry purposes. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify units for max_size or format expectations for user_prompt.

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 specific action ('Capture a screenshot') and target resource ('current Blender 3D viewport'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform modeling, animation, or scene management operations rather than viewport capture. The verb+resource combination is precise 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clearly for viewport capture, there's no mention of when it should be used instead of 'render_image' (a sibling tool) or other capture methods, nor any prerequisites about viewport state or Blender context needed for successful execution.

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