capture_interactive_viewer_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior and output formats, including the 'display-referred' PNG detail, which adds beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention where files are saved, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or whether it overwrites existing files.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the action and the output formats, and the key information 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the operation and its effects. It covers the output formats but omits practical details such as where snapshots are written, what the tool returns after saving, and whether it requires an already-running viewer. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the viewer_id parameter beyond implying the target viewer. This is minimal compensation for the lack of parameter documentation, though the single parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('the viewer') and clearly states the output formats: a raw EXR and a display-referred PNG. This is distinct enough to separate it from sibling tools like capture_render_snapshot or interactive_viewer_preview.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active interactive viewer. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing it against sibling tools like capture_render_snapshot.

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