Shape screenshot

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations (Shape Studio opens automatically, returns a PNG file path rather than inline image data, GUI-mode-only requirement). However, the note that it 'Writes files on this PC at the path you give' directly conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=true, which asserts the tool does not modify its environment.

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 the core action and return value, then workflow, then parameter semantics and constraints. Slightly dense, but each clause (auto-launch, PNG path, live GUI only, node selection) carries usable information and none is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (PNG file path) and how to consume it. With only two optional parameters and full schema coverage, everything needed to invoke the tool correctly is present; the only loose end is the annotation/behavior mismatch.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the *purpose* of select_node ('opens that node in the property panel first, e.g. to review fire faces / HRR chart'), giving an agent a concrete reason to set it rather than just its mechanics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'capture a screenshot of the running GUI' in Shape Studio, with the purpose ('visually REVIEW the shape you built') stated up front. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling capture tools (e.g. capture_view for result plots) by naming Shape Studio and the shape-review workflow.

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 workflow context: capture, read the image, compare against reference photos, then fix with shape_set_params — effectively naming the next alternative tool. It also states a hard precondition ('Live GUI mode only'), but does not explicitly exclude or compare against the other screenshot/view-capture siblings.

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