See the design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the screenshot captures the rendered design out of the viewer without app UI, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the design must be open, any waiting behavior for rendering, or that the operation is read-only. Given the tool's simple nature, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and a key detail about the output (no UI chrome). No wasted words.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return format (e.g., inline image vs. savePath), whether the project must be currently open, or any limitations like fullPage being very tall. The schema helps but is not fully relied upon because coverage is only 70%.

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 70%, so the schema already explains most parameters (e.g., path, width, format, quality). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the tool's overall purpose, but it does not need to since the schema covers most. It provides context that could help interpret parameters like 'path' and 'fullPage' implicitly, but no direct additions.

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 tool captures a page in a Claude Design project and returns it as an image, distinguishing it from sibling tools by emphasizing its use for visual review. The verb 'capture' plus the resource 'page' is specific, and the title 'See the design' reinforces the purpose.

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 usage guidance: use after send_prompt to verify results, before revisions to make critique specific, and whenever the user asks if something looks right. This clearly indicates when to invoke the tool and connects it to the workflow with sibling tools.

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