Capture the Archicad window

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: discloses the 1568-pixel downscaling cap and the scaled_from field that reports the original size, the Tapir 1.7.2 version requirement, and how entire_drawing changes what is framed. The 'Reads only' line reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by use case, prerequisite, option semantics, scaling behavior, and version requirement in four tight sentences. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (an image), the scaling caveat, and the environment prerequisite. It is only incomplete on the port parameter and on how/where the image is delivered, which keeps it from the top score.

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 both parameters. It fully explains entire_drawing ('covers the whole drawing of a 2D window instead of the current zoom') but says nothing about the port parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource (capture the current Archicad window as an image) and enumerates the view types it can show (floor plan, section, 3D, layout). It also distinguishes itself from the visual-workflow sibling by pointing to show_elements as the setup step, so an agent can tell it apart from pure data reads like get_element_data or get_selection.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rationale ('to check a result by eye' with examples such as door swing direction and wall junctions) and a prerequisite workflow ('Call show_elements first to bring the elements into view'). It lacks any when-not-to-use or exclusion, so it falls short of the top band.

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