inspect_url_hd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it reveals non-obvious behaviors like suppressing cookies/modals, scrolling to trigger animations, and producing Retina 2x screenshots. It does not mention network side effects, auth requirements, or failure modes, but the described behavior goes well beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose in caps and then lists each capability in a logical sequence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: cookie suppression, smooth scroll, Retina 2x, and token extraction.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent receives back. It mentions extracting design tokens, which implies a return value, but it does not state whether screenshots are saved to destination_dir, what the token format is, or what the overall response structure looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that produces multiple artifacts.

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 schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (url and destination_dir), so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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+resource pair — 'INSPEÇÃO FORENSE HD DE QUALQUER URL' — and then enumerates concrete actions: suppressing cookies/modals, smooth scrolling to load animations, taking Retina 2x screenshots, and extracting real design tokens. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vault, list_templates, or get_design_system, which are repository/blueprint oriented rather than URL-inspection oriented.

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 makes the intended use-case explicit: use it when you need a forensic, high-definition inspection of any URL with clean screenshots and real design tokens. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but none of the sibling tools perform URL inspection, so the context is clear enough without exclusions.

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