catia_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns an image and can optionally save to a file, which are behavioral details not fully covered by annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and it adds a reliability caveat about geometry checking. Some gaps remain (e.g., behavior when no model is open), but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action ('Capture the CATIA 3D viewport and return it as an image') and then adds the primary use case. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It explains the return behavior (image) and optional file saving. It does not specify return format details, but since the tool returns an image, that is self-evident. The only minor gap is the absence of environment prerequisites (e.g., active document), but this is not critical for a read-only capture tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to. It mentions optional saving and image return, which maps to the path and return_image parameters, but the schema already explains these. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the CATIA 3D viewport and returns an image, with an optional file save. It names the specific verb 'capture' and resource '3D viewport', and distinguishes itself from siblings like catia_zoom or catia_fit_all which only manipulate the view rather than produce an 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?

It provides a clear use case: 'check that geometry came out the way you intended' and notes it is more reliable than reasoning about the feature tree. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the purpose is so distinct that an agent can infer when to use it. A brief mention of when not to use it (e.g., for measuring distances) would have made it a 5.

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