snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and the default views; it does not mention return format (e.g., image paths vs. binary data), potential side effects (e.g., whether the scene is modified), or any prerequisites like having the 3D window open. This is a material gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the core function, followed by a list of view options and the default. Every word earns its place, and key information (default views) is front-loaded. There is no redundant verbiage.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the main parameter (views) and purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain the return structure or the 'label' parameter, and it omits any prerequisites (e.g., needing a scene open). An agent might call it correctly, but there are gaps that could cause misinterpretation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the allowed values for the 'views' parameter and gives a default, which adds real value. However, it completely ignores the 'label' parameter, leaving its purpose undefined. Thus the description covers one parameter well but not the other.

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 3D window'), and the output ('return the images'). It also lists valid views, which makes the function's scope unambiguous. The phrase '3D window' differentiates it from the sibling snapshot_2d, so an agent can infer the correct tool without opening schemas.

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 when to use it (when a 3D snapshot is needed) and provides default views, but it does not explicitly contrast with snapshot_2d or state any exclusions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the usage context is inferred rather than made explicit.

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