tor_solve_captcha

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it captures the image, reads it, and types the answer. It also discloses a failure mode (OCR fails and returns the image), which is valuable context not captured by the annotations. The annotations already indicate destructive hint and non-read-only, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.

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 highly concise: two sentences, first states the primary action, second states the fallback. Every word is purposeful and front-loaded with the tool's main function.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what happens on success (e.g., confirmation or resulting state). It only mentions returning the image on OCR failure. Also, the lack of parameter syntax details leaves gaps. However, given the tool's low complexity, the description is mostly adequate but not fully complete.

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 description does not explicitly explain the two parameters (captcha_img_selector and captcha_input_selector). While the workflow implies that one selector locates the image and the other the input, it does not clarify the selector format (e.g., CSS vs XPath) or provide examples. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not sufficiently.

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's function: 'Auto-solve a CAPTCHA using local OCR' followed by the workflow (captures, reads, types). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like tor_get_captcha (which likely only retrieves) and tor_type (which types).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a CAPTCHA needs solving, it automates via OCR. It also gives a fallback scenario ('If OCR fails, returns the image for you to read with vision instead'), implying an alternative approach. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for complex CAPTCHAs).

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