View a design screenshot

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does: it discloses that tall full-page screenshots are split into vertical tiles, that the response reports `pages`, and how to fetch further tiles. That's meaningful behavioral detail about the response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the pagination caveat follows immediately with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description shoulders the burden of explaining returns, and it does explain the `pages` reporting and tile mechanic. Slightly incomplete on what the image itself represents, but for a view tool that's largely self-evident.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the `pages` count in the response and the `page` parameter for requesting further tiles — semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

Specific verb and resource: fetch a cdn.godly.design screenshot and return it as a viewable image. It's clearly distinct from the inspiration/search siblings, though the distinction is implicit (the siblings deal with inspiration content, not image viewing) rather than stated.

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 useful guidance on paginating through tiles, but never says when to reach for this tool versus the sibling tools, nor that the url must come from another tool's output (that's only in the schema). Usage context is implied rather than articulated.

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