stagehand_observe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool finds elements and optionally returns an action, without detailing side effects, return format, session requirements, or any safety implications. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with a live page.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. However, the phrase 'optionally return an action' is vague and could confuse the agent about what the tool actually returns, reducing clarity without adding meaningful structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the schema description provides extensive guidance on the instruction parameter. However, the description lacks context about the tool's role in the overall workflow (e.g., observing before acting) and its return behavior, making it minimally complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a detailed description of how to formulate the instruction. The tool description adds no new parameter information, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 finds interactive elements from an instruction, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('interactive elements on the page'). It also hints at an optional action output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stagehand_act (which performs actions) and stagehand_extract (which extracts data).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, though the 'optionally return an action' phrase implies it may precede act. The schema description mentions later use with the act tool, but the description itself lacks this context.

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