viewport_capture_all

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds no detail about what that implies—such as overwriting an existing file or producing side effects beyond the current scene. The only behavioral claim is 'save it', which is essentially part of the tool's purpose and does not go beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The bilingual repetition is justified for audience accessibility, and both sentences earn their place by stating the action and the practical benefit.

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 one-parameter tool, the description plus schema covers the essential behavior, optional path handling, and a representative use case. It does not explicitly explain the destructive/overwrite implications hinted at by the annotation, but the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.

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 100%, and the path parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: capture every viewport, combine them into a single grid image, and save it. The phrase 'every viewport' also clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'viewport_capture', which suggests capturing only the current viewport.

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 gives a clear use case: seeing the top/front/perspective layout at once, which is helpful context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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