nhin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces a viewport image to review and describes the intended self-evaluation workflow, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits where the image is returned, its format, or how the size cap affects it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the usage advice and evaluation criteria. Efficient with little waste, appropriate for a simple viewport-capture tool.

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?

No output schema means the description must carry return-value context; it implies an image is produced but does not specify format or location. Combined with an undocumented parameter and no annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to call and interpret 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% for the single parameter kich_thuoc_toi_da (max size), and the description never references it. No meaning, units, or effect on output is added, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb (capture/screenshot) and resource (Blender viewport) for the purpose of inspecting the just-built result. However, with many visually-similar siblings like xem_canh, xem_doi_tuong, and render_anh, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 clear usage context: call after every significant build step, then look at the image and self-evaluate for floating blocks, intersections, or wrong proportions. This is a concrete when-to-use instruction, though it offers no explicit when-not or named alternatives.

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