charlotte_observe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'without performing any action' (non-mutating), explains cost trade-offs ('cheapest', 'still much cheaper than minimal JSON'), and reveals output behavior for output_file ('Returns only a confirmation with the file path and size'). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits potential error conditions or page-load requirements.

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 dense but well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, then explains optional parameters in a logical flow. Each sentence adds operational value without filler. Slightly longer than ideal, but the complexity of 5 parameters and absence of annotations justify the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter behaviors, alternatives, and cost considerations. It lacks explicit return format details for the default view, but for a read-only observation tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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. The description adds significant value by explaining detail level semantics (minimal/summary/full), view trade-offs (tree vs tree-labeled with cost estimates), and output_file resolution ('relative paths resolve against output_dir'). This goes beyond the bare enum names and provides actionable guidance for parameter selection.

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's function: 'Get current page state without performing any action.' The verb 'get' and resource 'page state' precisely convey the read-only nature, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like charlotte_click and charlotte_type. Mentioning charlotte_find and observe variants further differentiates it from element-finding 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?

Explicitly directs when to use alternatives: 'use charlotte_find to get specific elements with actionable IDs' and 'or observe({ detail: "summary" }) to see all elements.' Recommends view: 'tree' as the 'cheapest orientation tool,' giving clear context on when to choose this tool over others.

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