get_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It explains parameter defaults (e.g., width/height fall back to viewport) and return type ('screenshot'), but it does not describe the output format, prerequisites (e.g., open document), or potential errors. The phrase 'active view' is ambiguous relative to the view_name parameter, creating slight confusion.

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 Args and Returns sections, and every sentence adds value. However, it repeats the view list from the schema, which is somewhat redundant, and the opening 'active view' is slightly inconsistent with the view_name parameter. Still, it remains clear and efficient.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers all parameters and their defaults, but it leaves gaps: it does not specify the screenshot format (e.g., base64, file path) or any error conditions. The return description 'A screenshot of the active view' is under-specified for practical use, so the context is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: view_name lists all valid options, width/height specify pixel dimensions and default behavior, and focus_object describes the focusing rule. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 'Get a screenshot of the active view' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_object and get_objects by focusing on screenshots rather than 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 its usage through the imperative 'Get a screenshot' and parameter details, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest alternatives, but the description itself offers no guidance.

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