Screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that scene rendering is offscreen and requires no setup, and that game/editor modes need bridge_install. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on a running game, return format, or any other behavioral traits beyond these setup requirements, which is a notable gap.

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 well-structured and concise, consisting of four short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: hook, scene behavior, game/editor behavior, and usage advice. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately communicates the critical source distinction, with no wasted words.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an image path or binary) and any further prerequisites (like the project parameter). It mentions bridge_install but not the project parameter or how the captured image is delivered to the caller. The core functionality is clear, but these omissions reduce completeness.

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 schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, leaving width and height undocumented. The description adds meaningful context for the 'source' parameter by explaining what each source does (offscreen vs running game vs editor) and the bridge_install requirement. However, it does not compensate for the missing width/height descriptions or add details for other parameters, so its added value is limited.

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 opens with 'See what a scene actually looks like' and clearly outlines three distinct capture sources (scene, game, editor) with their specific behaviors. This not only states the tool's purpose but also distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on visual verification, explicitly contrasting with the console which cannot display visuals.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use this to verify layout and visuals' and notes that the console cannot show them, implying this is the primary tool for visual checks. It also provides a prerequisite (bridge_install for game/editor modes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use an alternative, though the console is implied as insufficient.

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