browserbase_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 effectively describes key traits: it returns 'detailed information about the identified elements including their properties, location, and interaction capabilities,' explains that results are used 'to craft precise actions,' and notes that 'the more specific your observation instruction, the more accurate the element identification will be.' It lacks details on error handling or performance, but covers core behavior well.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying usage, distinguishing from siblings, or explaining outputs. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor repetition, but overall it's well-structured and efficient.

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 (identifying interactive elements) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It explains the purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and output format. However, it doesn't detail potential limitations or error cases, which could enhance completeness for an interactive tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by emphasizing specificity in instructions ('The more specific your observation instruction, the more accurate the element identification will be') and linking to the 'act tool,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 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's purpose: 'Observes and identifies specific interactive elements on the current web page that can be used for subsequent actions.' It specifies the verb ('observes and identifies'), resource ('interactive elements'), and scope ('current web page'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract' for text content and 'act' for performing actions.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this tool when you need to locate elements before performing actions with the act tool. DO NOT use this tool for extracting text content or data - use the extract tool instead for that purpose.' It clearly states when to use it (before actions) and when not to use it (for extraction), naming specific sibling alternatives.

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