get_screenshot_of_window_as_image

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the output format (PNG), the size-limiting mechanism, and the default fallback to the MCP message size limit. It does not describe edge cases like error handling when the limit is exceeded, but the core behavior is transparent and consistent with annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence; the second sentence addresses the only parameter. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description covers the action, return type, and parameter semantics. It does not mention potential errors, resolution, or multi-window scenarios, but these are minor given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of readOnlyHint. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating 'return it as a PNG image'.

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 carries the full burden for parameter clarity. It clearly explains 'size_limit_in_bytes' — what it caps, the default (0), and what zero means (use MCP message size limit). This is exactly the semantic addition needed beyond the raw integer 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Take a screenshot of the entire Blender window' and explicitly states the return type (PNG image). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_screenshot_of_area_as_image' (area vs window) and 'get_screenshot_of_window_as_json' (JSON vs PNG). No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 explains the size_limit parameter and its default behavior, which helps with invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'get_screenshot_of_area_as_image' or 'get_screenshot_of_window_as_json'. Usage context is implied by the name and wording, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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