rhino_capture_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the output is a PNG and explains how to get base64 data, but it repeats what the schema already states about include_base64. It does not mention that providing a filename writes the image to disk, nor any side effects (e.g., file overwrite), though the schema's filename default and description imply it. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences: the first captures the core action, the second clarifies the optional parameter. Each sentence earns its place, with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple, non-destructive capture tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficient. It covers the main purpose and the key option (include_base64). Minor gaps exist: it doesn't mention what happens when filename is provided (file write) or the response format beyond base64. Given the simplicity and available schema, these are acceptable.

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 provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (width, height, filename, include_base64), so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it adds a single clarification about include_base64 that is slightly more direct than the schema's phrasing. Because the schema covers parameters well, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Capture'), a concrete resource ('the active viewport'), and an output format (PNG). It clearly distinguishes this tool from geometry-editing siblings like rhino_move or rhino_boolean_union, and even from related view tools like rhino_zoom_extents or rhino_set_view, which alter the view rather than capture an image.

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 (when you need a PNG of the current view), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_export (which can save geometry) or rhino_gh_run_script for custom captures. No exclusions or comparison to siblings are given, so an agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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