See the game

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rendering requires a non-headless editor, the `game` action returns viewport_size + coord_scale with the click-coordinate formula, and `render` auto-frames without editor camera fiddling.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded, followed by a scannable `Actions:` list that groups each mode's parameters inline. 'Look at things' is minor filler, but every subsequent line carries actionable detail.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for the `game` action (viewport_size + coord_scale). For a 10-parameter, 4-action tool it is largely complete, though the return shape of `render`/`editor`/`preview` is left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving defaults (max_size=1280, preview_light=true), enumerating the allowed angle values, and cross-referencing parameters per action. It also mentions parameters (annotate_groups, format, preview_light) not present in the schema, adding interpretation the schema alone lacks.

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 enumerates the four capture modes (game screenshot, offscreen render, editor viewport, resource preview) with concrete detail, so the tool's role as the visual-capture entry point is clear. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling `editor` tool, which it partially overlaps with via its own `editor` action.

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?

Per-action notes imply when each mode applies (e.g. `render` for offscreen angles, `preview` for texture/mesh/material/scene files), and it flags the non-headless editor requirement. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative routing to siblings like `editor` or `game`.

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