charles_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a recommended_next_action and ties that to the active-capture state, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what happens when Charles is unreachable/not connected, or whether this is a read-only operation—gaps that matter given annotations are absent.

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 tight, purposeful sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second gives actionable context, making it easy to scan.

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 parameterless status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential decision logic and names the relevant sibling tools. It does not list the exact return fields or enumerate all error conditions, but the output schema presumably handles field-level detail and the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and nothing about the schema coverage lowers this bar.

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 begins with a specific, actionable verb 'Check' and names the exact resource ('Charles connectivity and active live-capture state'), which immediately clarifies the tool's function. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing start_live_capture and the broader history-plane tool family, so an agent can tell this status check apart from capture management or replay tools.

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 routing guidance: when no active capture exists, agents should call start_live_capture before falling back to history-plane tools. This both tells when using this tool is appropriate and directs the agent to the correct sibling tools under a specific condition, satisfying the when/alternative requirement.

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