Vulcan Viewport Screenshot (Token-Optimised)

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description usefully adds processing behavior (downscale to max_width, JPEG at quality=70, token optimization), but does not say whether the image is returned inline or written to a file/path, which matters for a capture tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the token-optimization rationale. No wasted text.

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 2-param, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter effects, but the return mechanism (inline image vs. saved file) is left ambiguous, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it names `max_width`, gives its 800px default, and states `quality=70` and their shared purpose (token minimization). It does not bound valid ranges, but both parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 and resource ('Capture the Maptek Vulcan 3D window') and the output form (compressed JPEG image). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping sibling `vulcan_canvas`.

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 intent (grab visual context of the 3D scene) is implied by 'preserving clear visual context of the 3D scene', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to the similarly visual `vulcan_canvas` sibling.

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