screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that temporary state changes (camera, hidden tags/entities, section plane, guides) are rolled back, that the modified flag is preserved, and that no undo step is created. These are non-obvious side-effect guarantees an agent needs. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or how the returned image is delivered.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the core action leads, followed by the behavioral caveats. No filler, and the important rollback/no-undo guarantee is prominent rather than buried.

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 an 8-param all-optional tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the side-effect contract, and the output format (PNG). The only gap is the lack of detail on how the resulting image is returned or where it lands, which an agent might want.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters including the 'view' modes and defaults. The only description-level addition is the units note ('all lengths and coordinates are in metres'), which largely restates what the schema already says for view and section. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Capture the SketchUp viewport as a PNG image') that no sibling tool duplicates, so the agent can identify it immediately. Distinct from zoom_to (which only frames) and save/save_copy (which persist the model).

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?

The description implies the use case (rendering a view) but never states when to reach for this over alternatives or any conditions/exclusions. Some routing guidance leaks into the parameter text (e.g. section 'use with view:top'), but that is schema-level, not description-level.

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