capture_model_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so by explicitly labeling the operation '[READ ONLY]', signaling no model mutation. It also notes the capture is of the 'current' view, implying dependance on the present display state; it does not discuss file overwrite or output details, but the output schema and filename default mitigate that gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the '[READ ONLY]' safety signal comes first)Skip... The whole text earns its place and communicates the essential purpose immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and a sensible default filename, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operation's purpose and read-only nature, and the missing details about saved file location are minor given the schema and default value.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation of the 'filename' parameter or how it affects the capture. The property name and default value provide the only semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's missing description, even though the parameter is optional and self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Capture') and names a concrete resource ('current Mechanical graphics view'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_* data-retrieval tools by being the only image-capture operation.

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 phrase 'Capture the current Mechanical graphics view' clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: whenever a snapshot of the current display is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough and no sibling tool competes for this exact purpose.

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