etabs_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the visual-scope detail (what an engineer sees), but omits behavioural traits the schema actually carries, such as the focus-stealing behaviour of screen captures and the blank-GPU-view caveat for offscreen captures.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 read-only screenshot tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is captured and when to use it. The main gap is not positioning it relative to the overlapping render-view and refresh-view siblings.

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 75%, with the capture enum richly documented (focus tradeoff and blank-view caveat) directly in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; max_width remains undocumented in both places.

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 specific verb (screenshot) and resource (ETABS window), and clarifies scope by naming what is captured: model views, selection, and open dialogs. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like etabs_render_view or etabs_refresh_view, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 – verifying geometry, deformed shapes, or design colours after other tools ran – which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the routing precision a 5 would require.

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