captcha_request_human_intervention

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states the tool creates an intervention request with a screenshot and that automation should wait. However, it does not clarify whether the tool blocks until solved or returns immediately, nor does it mention side effects, required permissions, or how to check resolution. Some behavioral aspects are left implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes examples and a usage instruction. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy.

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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of sibling tools like captcha_wait_for_resolution and captcha_get_pending_interventions, the description is mostly complete. It explains what triggers the tool, what it does, and what the automation should do next. However, it lacks details on the return value or lifecycle (e.g., how to know when intervention is resolved), but these are covered by siblings.

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 tool description adds value for 'take_screenshot' by explaining it creates a screenshot, but for 'captcha_type' and 'message' it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Request human intervention for an unsolvable captcha'), provides concrete examples (ReCAPTCHA v2, hCaptcha), and distinguishes from siblings like captcha_handle_auto (which automates) and captcha_resolve_intervention (which resolves an existing request). The verb 'request' and resource 'human intervention' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage when a captcha is unsolvable by automation and instructs 'The automation should wait for human to solve.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools like captcha_handle_auto. However, the sibling list provides that context implicitly.

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