capture_contact_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the process (capture and stitch) and return value, but doesn't clarify if the tool is read-only or modifies the scene. Given it's a capture tool, the omission is minor but keeps the score at 3.

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 short, front-loading the main purpose in the first line. Every sentence is informative and free of redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately states the return is a single composited image. It covers the key aspects for a capture tool, but could optionally mention image format or resolution.

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 explains both parameters in meaningful terms: 'angles' as a comma-separated list of angle names with a default, and 'max_size' as pixel size per tile. This adds essential context beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 tool captures multiple viewport angles and stitches them into a contact sheet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_viewport_angle (single angle) and get_viewport_screenshot (single image).

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 usage is implied: use when you need a composite of multiple angles in one image. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools helps.

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