get_view

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a screenshot is returned and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether a document must be loaded, what format the screenshot takes, or any side effects or error conditions.

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 well organized with Args and Returns sections and is appropriately concise. The view list is redundant with the schema enum and the final 'Returns' line largely restates the first sentence, but the overall structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It explains parameter defaults well and gives a basic return statement, but it omits the exact output format, prerequisites, and any caveats about view state or object focus 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful semantics for all four parameters: view_name lists the valid values, width/height explain default viewport fallback, and focus_object explains the fit-all-objects default. This goes well beyond the raw schema defaults.

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 'Get a screenshot of the active view' and enumerates the available standard views, making it distinguishable from sibling get_* tools that return object data. Some ambiguity remains because 'active view' could imply the current viewport while view_name explicitly selects one of the listed views.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_view versus alternatives such as get_object or execute_code. The purpose is implied by the verb and parameter descriptions, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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