renforge_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the behavior of grid, rulers, crosshair_x/y, and the effect of width/height. It is missing details about side effects, return format, or whether the frame is saved/returned, but the core action is clearly scoped.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first states the core capability, the second details the measurement guides, and the third offers a practical resolution/aspect-ratio tip. There is no filler or redundancy; the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the main purpose and some param semantics, but omits return behavior, side effects, and full parameter coverage for crop/scale, making autonomous correct invocation challenging.

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 no descriptions for any of the 12 parameters, so the description provides the only semantic layer. It explains grid, rulers, crosshair_x/y, width/height, and the aspect-ratio behavior, while grouping crop and scale only generically. It leaves many parameter details implicit and says nothing about project_path.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('game frame'), and clearly outlines optional transformations (resizing, cropping, zooming) and measurement overlays. It conveys a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling renforge_capture_screenshot.

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?

It provides useful context such as capturing at logical resolution and preserving aspect ratio when only one dimension is passed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like renforge_capture_screenshot or renforge_diff_screenshots, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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