captchaflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the action is to 'create' a task, with no mention of asynchronous behavior, required authentication, side effects, task lifecycle, or whether the created task is later fetched via getTaskResult.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, but it is also minimal to the point of omitting important operational and parameter details that other dimensions capture.

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 creation tool with no annotations, an opaque parameter schema, no output schema, and related sibling tools, the description is too thin. The agent knows the goal but not the payload, workflow, or return behavior, so it cannot confidently invoke the tool 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 schema describes a single 'task' array with items {} and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the task is 'captcha-solving' but gives no information about the expected array structure, task type fields, or what values are valid, leaving the agent unable to construct the parameter correctly.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a captcha-solving task'). It is not a tautology and it distinguishes the operation from the sibling getters getBalance and getTaskResult by clearly indicating a write action.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use createTask versus getBalance or getTaskResult, and no mention of a workflow such as creating a task and later polling for its result. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Check account balance' implies a read operation but does not state side effects, required permissions, response format, or error behavior. It is not misleading but is minimally transparent.

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 short with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It repeats the tool name's meaning without adding the details needed for correct invocation.

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?

A required parameter is undocumented, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no usage context. The description is not sufficient for an agent to reliably construct a valid call or interpret the result.

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 0%, and the only required parameter 'extra' is completely unexplained. The description adds no meaning for this parameter, leaving an agent unable to know what value to supply. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and a resource ('account balance'), making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the sibling names (createTask, getTaskResult) are unrelated enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what scenarios call for getBalance. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Poll' hints at a non-blocking or iterative pattern, but it does not explain what happens before completion, what the return value means, or what error/retry conditions 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 is minimalist and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification: there is no context, usage guidance, or parameter information to structure, so efficiency comes at the cost of completeness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'task result' looks like and how polling behaves. It provides only the core intent, leaving return values, completion detection, failure modes, and polling semantics unspecified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, taskId, is documented only by its name and title. The description does not mention the parameter at all; its role is inferable from the tool name but not explicitly explained.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Poll for task result' clearly indicates a retrieval/status operation. It is distinguishable from createTask and getBalance by that verb-resource pairing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it loses the fifth point.

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 word 'poll' implies that this is meant for repeated status checks after a task has been created, likely via createTask, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it or what alternatives exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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