request_human

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world and non-destructive, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it blocks until a Done click, renders a banner, and requires a visible window. It omits what happens on timeout expiry, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the single critical prerequisite. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists and covers return values, and the blocking/banner behavior is explained. However, the timeout parameter's semantics are unexplained, which matters for an agent that must decide what value to pass and how to react if the human never clicks.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It says nothing about 'message' or 'timeout_s' (e.g. whether timeout aborts, errors, or continues), leaving the agent to guess from defaults 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pause for a human') and names the exact scenarios (captcha, login, 2FA). This clearly separates it from automatic-wait siblings like wait_for and click, which cannot handle human interaction.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions (captcha, login, 2FA) and a hard prerequisite: configure(headless=False) must be set first. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is explicit.

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