godot_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the output format and does not disclose conditions like whether the editor must be running or whether the capture can fail, but this is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

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 sentences with the action and target front-loaded, followed by the return format. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant information.

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 a no-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It names the action, the target, and the output encoding, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 0-params baseline applies, and the description neither adds nor needs parameter details.

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 action ('Capture'), a specific target ('the Godot editor viewport'), and a concrete output contract ('Returns base64 PNG image data'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like godot_execute or godot_status, which handle actions or status rather than visual snapshots.

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 makes the use case obvious: use it when a visual snapshot of the editor viewport is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to compete with screenshot functionality, so the omission is minor.

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