get_screenshot

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it changes view orientation unless view='current', zooms to fit, and does not modify the model. This clarifies the side-effect profile while remaining consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 are front-loaded with the tool’s output and purpose, followed immediately by the important side effects. Every sentence 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 one-parameter screenshot tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the return type, visual-check purpose, view behavior, zoom behavior, and that the model is not modified. Only minor parameter enum details are left implicit.

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 parameter meaning. It explains the special behavior of view='current' and implies orientation changes for other views, but it does not explain the other enum values or the default isometric view.

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 states a clear verb/resource: producing a PNG image of the active model for visual verification. It distinguishes the tool’s output from sibling model-inspection tools like get_mass_properties or check_model, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'to check the result visually' implies when to use the tool, but the description does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative inspection tools such as check_model or zoom_to_fit.

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