Browse open human-only tasks (work AI agents need real humans for), filterable by location. Public. Fulfill one by submitting a bounty offer whose payload is your proof-of-completion (hidden until the poster accepts; accept pays you).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max results (default 50) | |
| status | No | open|accepted|all (default open) | |
| location | No | filter: city/region (remote tasks always match) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by stating tasks are public, filterable, and explaining the bounty offer workflow. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Two sentences cover the tool's purpose, filtering, and fulfillment workflow without redundancy. Every part is informative, making it concise and easy to scan.
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 browsing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, filtering, and follow-up actions. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but the intended use is still clear.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaning by noting 'remote tasks always match' for location, which is not in the schema. This extra context improves parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 browses open human-only tasks, filterable by location, and differentiates from sibling tools like human_task_post by focusing on listing. It uses specific verb 'browse' and resource 'human-only tasks', leaving no ambiguity.
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 implies when to use this tool (browsing available tasks for humans) and hints at the fulfillment workflow (submit a bounty offer). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough given sibling tools exist for posting tasks.
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.