take_screenshot

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

The description mentions that the screenshot is written as a PNG to an absolute path on the editor machine, which is important behavioral information. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), blocking behavior, or requirements (e.g., viewport visibility). No annotations provide additional safety cues.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence directly states the action, the second clarifies the critical parameter, and the third adds a usage hint. It is well-structured and free of superfluous content.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the primary parameter but omits guidance on width/height dimensions. It also lacks details on file format guarantee, viewport selection, or resolution behavior. It is minimally complete for a screenshot tool.

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 description defines 'filename' as 'an absolute path on the editor machine where the PNG is written,' adding clarity beyond the schema. However, it does not explain 'width' and 'height' parameters, leaving them with only type and default values from the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter context would be beneficial.

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 'Capture a high-resolution screenshot of the active editor viewport.' It specifies a specific verb (capture) and resource (screenshot of editor viewport), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly asset/actor management commands.

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?

The description includes 'Useful for letting the agent visually verify scene changes,' which provides a context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'editor_state' or 'get_actor' for visual checks.

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