Скриншот игры

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description explains why mutation is involved (it writes a PNG to disk) while adding the crucial constraint that headless sessions cannot render. It does not state overwrite/cleanup behavior for existing files, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the prerequisite, then the node option and return value. No filler, though the embedded godot_run call syntax is slightly dense for a description.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating it returns both the file path and the image, and it covers the render prerequisite. The only missing piece is behavior around default path collisions or file overwrite.

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 75%, already the main source of parameter meaning. The description clarifies node's semantics (crop region, Control/Node2D/Node3D) and mentions the returned path, but says nothing about scale or timeout_ms, adding only marginal value.

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 names a concrete verb and resource (capture a game frame as PNG) and adds a distinguishing capability (optional node cropping). This separates it from generic siblings like godot_image, though it does not explicitly say what godot_image is for. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 states a clear precondition — the run must have been started with render=true via godot_run, since headless has no renderer. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit contrast with alternatives such as godot_image or godot_runtime.

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