capture_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates the basic behavior: a non-mutating PNG capture of the active view. However, it does not disclose what happens if no document or view is active, whether the image is returned directly or saved to disk, or how view_angle affects the output.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output format while keeping the entire definition minimal.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no guidance on valid values or behavior when parameters are omitted. The description is too thin to fully support correct invocation, especially for view_angle and active-document semantics.

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%, and the description adds no parameter detail. Width, height, doc_name, and view_angle are only hinted at by their names and defaults, leaving the accepted values for view_angle and the meaning of doc_name null ambiguous.

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 ('Capture') with a concrete resource ('PNG of the active FreeCAD 3D view'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, none of which focus on rendering or capturing the current 3D view.

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 tool versus alternatives, such as when a document must be open or when another capture/export path might be preferred. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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