chimerax_tool_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it captures only tool windows (not the 3D view), that width/height resize the widget, that padding is applied, and that output_path has a default save location. It also describes the return dict. However, it does not mention prerequisites like whether the tool window must already be open, or error handling if the tool is not found, leaving a small transparency gap.

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?

The description is well-structured as a docstring with a concise introduction and a detailed Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter descriptions are somewhat verbose, preventing a perfect score. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, thorough parameter semantics, and even the error return format. This is complete for a tool of this complexity, with no 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents all 5 parameters with semantic meaning beyond types: tool_name includes examples, width/height specify purpose and range, padding explains default and constraint, and output_path describes default behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Capture a screenshot of a ChimeraX tool window' and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by saying 'This captures separate tool panels, not the main 3D view. Use chimerax_screenshot for the main 3D view.' This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from its sibling.

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?

Directly provides an alternative: 'Use chimerax_screenshot for the main 3D view.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling, satisfying the requirement for usage guidance.

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