ゲーム画面スクショ

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: it renders exactly one frame, returns a PNG, and errors if the camera is not active. It also specifies the return format (image block + text with path/size/mode). These go beyond the annotations, earning a 4.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The key action (renders from active camera, returns PNG) is front-loaded, and all additional details (editor use, error condition, return format) are efficiently included without 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers input (active camera required), error condition, and output (image block + text with path/size/mode). It is complete for an AI agent to understand how and when to use the 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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema has 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 renders the scene from the active CameraComponent viewpoint and returns a PNG. It explicitly distinguishes itself from general screenshots by highlighting that it works in the Editor without playing, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implicitly differentiates from siblings like 'dx12_screenshot' by specifying the game camera viewpoint and the ability to check composition without playing. It also mentions the error condition when no active camera exists, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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