Capture Viewport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that an image is returned and that a reusable path is provided (implying a file is written to disk), but it omits whether the operation is side-effect-free on the scene, whether it can fail on headless sessions, or any cost/latency considerations.

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 short paragraphs with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about the returned path earns its place, though it slightly overlaps with the output parameter's schema 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover the return value; it does state that both an image and a reusable path are returned. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, leaving only minor gaps around failure modes.

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 100%, so the camera, output, and session_key parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including defaults and examples). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Screenshot the Maya viewport and return the image'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'view_image' tool, so an agent must infer the boundary between capturing and viewing.

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 clear context for use ('visually check modeling progress before/after making changes'), which is actionable guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to alternatives such as view_image or get_scene_info, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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