charlotte_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns a page representation after reload, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as losing unsaved form state, and the 'hard' parameter's cache-bypass behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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?

One concise sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple reload action with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it says what the tool does and what it returns. Slightly more detail on how 'detail' affects the returned representation could improve it, but the schema already covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'hard' and 'detail' already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Reload') with a clear resource ('current page') and explicitly states the return value ('Returns page representation after reload'). It is distinct from sibling navigation tools like charlotte_navigate, charlotte_back, and charlotte_forward.

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 usage context is implied: reload the current page when a refresh is needed. However, there are no explicit guidelines on when to choose this over alternatives like navigate or back/forward, nor any exclusionary conditions.

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