max_screenshot

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the latency tradeoff ('Rendering is slower (seconds)'), the fidelity difference (camera, lights, materials honoured only in render mode), and that the result is an image. It omits any note on whether a file is written, permissions needed, or failure behaviour when no viewport exists.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, then the usage rationale, then args. Every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating the render-mode tradeoff in both the prose and the Args block.

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 3-optional-parameter, read-only capture tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode selection, cost, and parameter meaning. It says the return is an image, which is the essential output note; remaining gaps (file path, error cases) are minor.

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%, so the description must document all three parameters, and it does: render's boolean semantics and the critical fact that width/height apply only when render=True. It adds no value ranges or interaction notes beyond defaults, but the mode-dependency clarification is the key gap the schema leaves and it is filled.

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 concrete verb ('Capture') and resource ('active viewport / quick render') plus the return type (image). No sibling tool in the list captures visuals, so an agent can route here unambiguously for a visual check.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'verify a change actually looks right instead of inferring from coordinates.' It also explains how to choose between the two modes (instant framebuffer grab vs slower render). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling or a when-not condition, so it lands at 4.

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