If the current page is gated by a CAPTCHA: solve via the configured pluggable solver (Tier-1, BYO provider+key, governed by standing) and inject the token; if none configured or it's a genuine human-gate, returns a HITL-handoff verdict (Tier-2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (not read-only, not idempotent), the description adds context about token injection, configuration dependency, and HITL handoff. It does not detail timeout or error handling, but provides good behavioral insight.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the condition. It is slightly long but contains no fluff. Efficient for the information conveyed.
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 single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: solving CAPTCHA or returning a HITL verdict. No gaps remain.
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 100% schema coverage, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'from browse_open' for browser_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to elaborate.
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 solves CAPTCHA via a configured solver or returns a HITL handoff. It identifies the specific resource (CAPTCHA-gated page) and verb (solve/inject token), distinguishing it from sibling browse 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?
The description explains when to use the tool (when page is gated by CAPTCHA) and outlines the two-tier behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like human_browse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.