Get 3D Screenshot

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds behavioral details: it reuses the open view's scene and camera, renders via a print-layout 3D map item, and clarifies that camera overrides apply only to the capture without affecting the live view. This provides useful context beyond 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loading the main action and providing details in a logical order. It is relatively concise given the parameter count, but slightly verbose with parentheses; however, every sentence adds valuable information.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and non-destructive behavior. It lacks explicit return format (e.g., image type or size), but the title and 'inline image' imply the result. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter. It defines dpi, view_index, and camera overrides (pitch, heading, distance) with concrete examples (e.g., '0 = straight down/top-down, 90 = horizontal/edge-on') and notes that overrides are applied only to the capture. This compensates entirely 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?

The description clearly states the tool captures an open 3D map view as an inline image. It differentiates from get_canvas_screenshot by noting the 2D tool cannot capture OpenGL 3D views, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (when a 3D map view is open) and when not (clarifies get_canvas_screenshot for 2D). Also provides prerequisites (requires 3D map view open in QGIS) and alternative tools, guiding correct selection.

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