test_take_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the IPC mechanism and that it works with autoloads/real scenes, adding context beyond schema. However, it does not mention timeout behavior, what happens if the game isn't running, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status or file path). This leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key prerequisite and scope. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core functionality and prerequisite but omits return value semantics and error behavior (e.g., timeout). While the schema covers parameters, the lack of return/error information makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's contract.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds context about the running game and IPC, which helps interpret 'projectPath' as the path to the running project, but does not add syntax or format details beyond schema. Meets baseline for full coverage.

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 action ('Capture a screenshot'), the target ('the currently running game'), and the mechanism ('via file-based IPC with TestController'). It distinguishes from sibling 'take_screenshot' by specifying context (running game vs. editor scene), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Requires the game to already be running (use run_project or test_run_scenario first).' This gives clear context for when to use the tool and implies alternatives (run_project/test_run_scenario) for starting the game. No explicit exclusions or alternate tool comparisons, but enough guidance for typical use.

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