capture_assembly_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool renders a shaded-view screenshot and that it is for visual verification, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior like whether the screenshot is returned inline, saved to a path, or only available via outputPath, nor does it mention any side effects. The showAllParts parameter hints at visibility behavior but the description doesn't explain it. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and purpose. It is concise and every word earns its place. It could arguably add a note about the sibling tool, but for the description itself, it is efficient and clear.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a PNG path, a base64 image, or just a success status), nor does it clarify the relationship between outputPath and the returned value. The sibling capture_part_studio_screenshot exists, so a cross-reference would help. The description is adequate for a simple render tool but leaves the agent to infer return behavior and when to prefer this over the part-studio variant.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds the context that the screenshot is 'shaded-view' and for 'visual verification', which helps interpret the view and output parameters, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Render'), a resource ('Assembly's current geometry'), and the purpose ('for visual verification'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling capture_part_studio_screenshot by naming 'Assembly' as the target. An agent can tell this is the assembly-specific screenshot tool without opening the schema.

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 implies usage for visual verification of an Assembly, and the sibling list includes capture_part_studio_screenshot, which suggests the alternative for part studios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs capture_part_studio_screenshot, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid assembly element). The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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