get_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impacts of large screenshots, or error conditions (e.g., invalid view_name). The description doesn't mention if this captures the current state or triggers a refresh.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and bullet points for enum values. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly and states the basic purpose. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error handling, which would be valuable despite the output schema.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. While schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description comprehensively explains each parameter: view_name with available enum values, width/height defaults to viewport dimensions, and focus_object behavior for fitting objects. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get a screenshot') and resource ('of the active view'), with the title reinforcing this purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_object or get_objects by focusing on view screenshots rather than object data retrieval.

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 a screenshot of a specific view is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object for object details or execute_code for custom rendering. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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