capture_scene_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not run the full project, that it captures exactly one frame, and that it requires a real display. It does not mention filesystem side effects or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond a bare capture statement.

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 concise sentences each earn their place: the load-and-capture behavior, the return value, and the critical display requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary schema repetition.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what scene to load, that it returns an image, that it avoids a full project run, and that a display is required. Minor gaps remain around the exact representation of the returned image and error conditions, but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains projectPath, scenePath, and timeoutMs. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as scene-path conventions or timeout consequences, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Load', 'capture') and identifies a precise resource (a .tscn scene file), while clearly stating the output is one rendered frame returned as an image. The phrase 'without running the full project' also helps distinguish it from project/run_scene-like operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want a single scene's rendered frame without launching the whole project. It also states a hard prerequisite ('Requires a real display (not --headless)'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as capture_screenshot or run_scene, so it stops short of a 5.

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