get_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important behavior such as the capture being tied to the 'active view' and defaults for width/height to the viewport size and focus_object to fit all objects. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations; the read-only nature is obvious from 'screenshot'.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns line ('A screenshot of the active view') largely repeats the opening sentence, introducing minor redundancy. Still, every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 simple screenshot tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, each parameter's meaning and defaults, and the return value. It does not address potential errors or usage alternatives, but the essential context is adequately provided. The lack of annotations is partially offset by the clarity of the screenshot's read-only nature.

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 description fully compensates for all four parameters. It explains view_name as a camera view, width/height as pixels with viewport-size defaults, and focus_object as the target object with a default of fitting all objects. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a screenshot of the active view.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_objects or get_object, which likely return data rather than a visual capture.

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 implies usage when a screenshot is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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