charlotte_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output type (structural diff with added/removed/moved/changed elements) and implies a read-only comparison, but it doesn't explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention prerequisites like the existence of a previous snapshot. Some behavioral context is added, but not comprehensive.

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 composed of two short sentences that front-load the primary action and the return value. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a high-level summary of return categories. It does not explain snapshot prerequisites or error behavior, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 covers both parameters 100%, with scope enum descriptions and snapshot_id details. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource ('current page state to a previous snapshot') and states the return type ('structural diff showing added, removed, moved, and changed elements'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on the live page (e.g., click, type, observe) and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear context: use this tool when you need to see differences between the current page state and a previous snapshot. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the diff focus is obvious among the siblings, which are mostly navigation and interaction tools.

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