look

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is a JPEG, that optional view args are applied first, and that views leaves the user's view alone. However, it never explains the keep parameter and says nothing about permissions or other side effects.

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 a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause carries useful information, though the parenthetical lists make it slightly harder to scan.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and several parameters. It still leaves keep unexplained and lacks detail on view args, so an agent does not have full invocation clarity.

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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains cam, max (default and pixel meaning), views (contents and benefit), and lists several view args, but it completely omits keep and does not explain the formats of the named view args.

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 states a specific output: a small JPEG of the user's viewport or camera view. That identifies the resource and format clearly. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'bl', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives practical guidance: use cam:true for camera view, prefer max 256-384, and use views to get several angles in one grid image. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, but the context is clear.

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