godot_take_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond that: it specifies 'active' viewport, which is useful, but does not disclose that saving a file via output_path is a side effect, nor explain the response behavior (base64 vs saved file). Since annotations cover the main safety profile, the description's added value is thin.

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 a single, tight sentence that states the core action without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'godot_capture_viewport' and provides no usage context or caveats. An agent could call this tool without confusion, but might also mistakenly choose it over a similar sibling. The output schema is present, so return values are covered externally.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters: output_path, viewport_type, and response_format, including their default values and return behavior. Thus the schema carries the full semantic load, and the description adds nothing about parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters well; no compensation is needed.

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 verb 'capture' and the resource 'screenshot of active game or editor viewport'. It is specific about what is captured, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'godot_capture_viewport', which likely serves a similar purpose. The intent is unambiguous for a human, and an agent can infer the core action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'godot_capture_viewport' that may be equivalent, but the description neither mentions it nor gives conditions for choosing one over the other. The context of 'active' viewport is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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