bl_screenshot

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 well: it reveals the render method (OpenGL viewport render), output format (PNG), image sizing behavior (longest side clamped to 320..2048), and aspect-ratio preservation. It does not disclose timeout behavior or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then clarifying details, then parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 simple tool with no required parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it covers the action, output format, image constraints, and key sizing semantics. The only notable gap is the absence of any explanation for `timeout`, which leaves a small but real ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents `width`, including clamping and aspect-ratio behavior, which is more than the schema provides. However, it says nothing about `timeout`, leaving its units, meaning, and failure behavior undocumented.

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 verb and resource: 'Render the current 3D viewport and return the image.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bl_set_view or ifc tools, and there is no other screenshot/render sibling competing for the same 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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need a clean image of the 3D viewport. It also explicitly states what it is not ('not a screen grab, so no panels or other windows appear'), which helps an agent choose it over a full-UI capture. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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