blender_capture_viewport

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, implying possible side effects, but the description doesn't elaborate on file writes or state changes. It adds useful performance context and clarifies the return type (image). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and minimal waste. The usage guidance is integrated efficiently.

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 description omits how the returned image is delivered (e.g., markdown vs json), how output_path interacts with the result, and doesn't position the tool against blender_render. With no output schema and partial parameter coverage, an agent faces significant gaps.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It merely reiterates the mode distinction already in the schema and provides no extra meaning for width, height, output_path, or response_format.

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 the tool's action ('Take a picture of what Blender is showing') and its role as a work-checking tool. It distinguishes internal modes (viewport vs render) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blender_render.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('call it after a change and look at the result') and mode-selection advice ('viewport is nearly instant, render is the real deal'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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