resinsight_snapshot

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, and it does disclose the main side effect: saving a PNG file to disk. However, it omits other behavioral traits relevant to invocation, such as default output location when output_dir is null, dependency on OpenGL rendering (hinted by the force_software_gl parameter), and potentially long render times.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: the action verb is front-loaded, the scope is specified ('default 3D view'), and the output is named ('PNG snapshot'). Every word earns its place in fewer than 20 words.

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 5 parameters and zero annotations, one sentence is insufficient. Missing context includes the meaning of extra_commands, the behavior of output_dir when left null, the role of force_software_gl, and any indication of runtime or environment requirements. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, but operational completeness is lacking.

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, but it only loosely maps 'case' to case_path and 'PNG snapshot' to the output. It adds no meaning for view_size, output_dir, extra_commands, or force_software_gl; an agent must guess that view_size is pixel dimensions and has no basis to understand what extra_commands accepts or when force_software_gl is needed.

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 specific verbs ('Render', 'save') and identifies a specific resource: the default 3D view of a ResInsight case, with a concrete output format (PNG snapshot). It is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with siblings like resinsight_well_log or resinsight_open, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plot_property_map or resinsight_well_log, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a case must be loaded, or ResInsight must be available). The description states what the tool does but provides no usage context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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