charles_status

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 states what it checks but omits whether this is a read-only operation (though implied), whether it affects performance, rate limits, or what specific status indicators are returned. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence of seven words with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the scope, making it appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description adequately covers the conceptual purpose. It establishes the domain (connectivity and capture state) sufficiently for an agent to select it correctly, though it could be improved by mentioning it's a safe diagnostic operation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per the evaluation rules. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter context since the input schema is empty.

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 specific verbs ('Check') and resources ('Charles connectivity', 'active live-capture state') that clearly distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like start_live_capture or analysis tools like analyze_recorded_traffic. However, 'Check' is slightly less precise than 'Retrieve' or 'Get', and 'Charles' assumes context from the server rather than being self-evident.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., checking connectivity before starting a capture). While the purpose implies diagnostic usage, there are no explicit when/when-not statements or comparisons to siblings like peek_live_capture.

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