get_viewport_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation (capture) and return type (Image), which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., an active viewport), or error behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 very compact: one action sentence, a parameter list, and a return statement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter, and return type. It is slightly thin on edge cases or limitations, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The single parameter max_size is fully explained in the description: 'Maximum size in pixels for the largest dimension (default: 800).' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property, clarifying the unit and which dimension it constrains.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a screenshot of the current Blender 3D viewport.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_info or asset import tools. The scope ('current') and output ('Image') are 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does; it does not mention contexts where it is appropriate or where another tool might be preferred.

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