get_viewport_screenshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the useful behavioral trait that downscaling preserves aspect ratio ('the longer side is scaled'). However, it omits what happens when no viewport is active, whether upscaling ever occurs, and how the PNG is delivered back (inline image content vs. a file path), which is the critical behavioral unknown for a capture tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces; the scaling note follows as secondary detail. 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?

The operation is simple and the single parameter is explained, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say how the image is returned and what failure looks like (no active viewport). Those omissions leave a real gap for an agent that must decide whether to display or forward the result.

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 coverage is 0% – the schema exposes only 'Max Size' with a default of 800 and no explanation. The description compensates by explaining that max_size governs the longer side of the scaled image, which conveys aspect-ratio preservation and clarifies it as a bound rather than an exact size. Units (pixels) and whether small viewports are upscaled remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (Capture) and resource (the active Maya viewport) plus the output format (PNG), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling render_scene, which is the nearest ambiguous alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to prefer this over render_scene or export_scene, nor does it state prerequisites such as an open/active viewport. The use case is only inferable from the phrase 'active Maya viewport'.

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