charlotte_screenshots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata (not image contents), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, limiting, ordering, or whether the list spans multiple sessions. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 consists of two short sentences that are direct and information-dense. Every word contributes: 'List', 'all saved screenshot artifacts', and the specific metadata fields. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool lists all saved artifacts and specifies the metadata fields returned. It does not explain edge cases like empty lists or error scenarios, but for a list operation with no inputs, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. By the rubric, zero params gives a baseline of 4, and the description does provide additional context about what the returned metadata includes (ID, filename, page URL, timestamp) which is helpful.

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 a specific action ('List all saved screenshot artifacts') and the resource (saved screenshots). It distinguishes from sibling tools like charlotte_screenshot (capture) and charlotte_screenshot_get (fetch one) by focusing on listing all saved artifacts.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need to list all saved screenshot artifacts. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names. A minor gap is lack of guidance on when to use this vs. charlotte_screenshot_get or charlotte_screenshot_delete, but the primary use case is evident.

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