capture_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool moves CLO's 3D camera and can change the fit map display. However, it does not specify whether the camera position is restored after capture, whether the capture creates a file or returns data, or any side effects like requiring an open 3D window. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about the tool's full impact.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, a usage hint, and a clean 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value; the fit_map explanation is concise but complete. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage, making it easy to scan.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to use, what it does, and all parameters. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., whether it saves an image, returns a path, or is just a UI action) and whether the camera move persists. These are relevant for an agent deciding how to use the result. The lack of an output schema makes this gap more noticeable.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It enumerates all valid views (front, back, left, right, three_quarter_left, three_quarter_right, top, bottom, zoom_all, current) and explains fit_map semantics with 'strain'/'stress'/'off' and the default behavior. This is comprehensive and goes beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'capture' and the resource 'CLO's 3D window', and it explicitly names the camera views it can capture. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_thumbnail and export_snapshot by focusing on the live 3D window rather than file exports, and it gives concrete use cases (checking twisted seams, misplaced pieces, fabric through avatar).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after simulating or editing to check the result'. It also explains that it moves the camera and toggles fit map display. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., export_snapshot) for saving images, so it lacks exclusions.

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