get_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return type ('screenshot'). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, what format the screenshot returns (image data, file path, etc.), or if any side effects occur.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points effectively for the view list. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative about the screenshot format rather than just restating the purpose.

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 has an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and a single parameter, the description adequately covers the core functionality but lacks context about when to use it versus sibling tools and behavioral details like permissions or side effects.

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 adds significant value beyond the input schema. While the schema only shows an enum of view names, the description explicitly lists all available views in a readable format and explains that these are 'the following views are available.' This provides crucial semantic context that the bare enum doesn't convey.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('screenshot of the active view'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_object or get_objects by focusing specifically on view screenshots rather than general object 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists available views, it doesn't explain when to choose one view over another or mention any prerequisites like needing an active view to capture. No sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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