maya_viewport_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures and returns an image, and it adds context about the importance of visual verification and the risk of proceeding without checking. It does not mention output format or error scenarios, but for a capture tool this is acceptable.

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 description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with the core purpose, includes a valuable usage paragraph, and lists parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and good parameter explanations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit details about the return format (e.g., file path vs. base64 image), but this is likely implied by the word 'image'. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does so effectively: width and height are described as pixel dimensions, and ornaments is explained as including HUD/gizmos, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool captures the current viewport as an image and returns it. It uses a specific verb ('captures') and resource ('viewport'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'maya_execute' or 'maya_scene_info'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after visual tasks like modeling, layout, lighting, and LOD work, to verify results. It also explains the rationale (numeric metrics can be normal while shapes are broken). However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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