Viewport Capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the output format (PNG). It says nothing about what 'off_screen' capture means behaviorally, whether capturing disturbs scene state, whether ornaments/grids are included by default, or whether a render is required — all of which materially change the result.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it leaves the definition under-specified for a six-parameter 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?

For a tool with six optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not sufficient. The agent knows it gets a PNG but not how the resolution, camera selection, or ornament toggles interact, so it cannot call this confidently without guessing.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only the camera/panel targeting is implied by the prose; width, height, off_screen, and show_ornaments are wholly undocumented in meaning beyond their names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Capture the active Maya viewport or a specified camera') and names the return artifact ('PNG image'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like scene_context or maya_command, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as scene_context or maya_command, nor any mention of prerequisites like a Maya session being open or a viewport being visible. The agent is left to infer the entire selection context.

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