unreal_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that it kills the game, steals foreground focus while capturing, is Windows-only, and is serialized with all other runs. That is strong transparency beyond the raw schema, though it does not describe failure modes or what happens on dryRun.

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 two sentences with a dense, front-loaded workflow and no repetition. Every clause adds information about what the tool does, what it returns, or what constraints apply.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives strong orientation but is not complete: it omits dryRun semantics, resolution controls, and timeout defaults. The schema provides ranges and defaults, but the description does not tie them into the workflow, so an agent still has to infer important execution behavior.

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 only 14%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does clarify map, vantages/BugItGo, console commands, and PNG output, but resX/resY, dryRun, settleSeconds, and timeoutSeconds are not meaningfully explained. The dryRun default-true behavior is especially consequential and undocumented in prose, leaving a critical 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?

The description names a concrete workflow: launch a -game map instance, wait for settle, teleport through vantages, run console commands, screen-capture, kill the game, and return PNG paths. This is far more specific than a generic 'takes screenshots' and clearly distinguishes it from the asset-editing and actor-editing sibling 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?

It says this is the pattern every visual verification was built on, which gives a clear context for when to call it, and it adds actionable constraints: Windows-only, steals foreground focus, and serialized. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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