detect_and_bypass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that some walls receive automatic bypass while others only return recommendations, and notes requirements for session reuse/proxies/paid solvers. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., attached browser, loaded page), potential side effects, or failure modes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key action ('One-shot: detect anti-bot wall...'). The bullet list for bypass routing is well-structured and adds clarity without unnecessary words. Very minor redundancy (e.g., 'No wall detected → returns ok with empty bypass' could be inferred from 'detection + bypass result').

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 tool's complexity (multiple wall types, different bypass strategies) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. However, it omits important context such as expected page state (e.g., must be navigated to a page with a wall), error handling, and whether the tool is idempotent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none are needed. Per guidelines, baseline score is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 that the tool detects anti-bot walls and applies the best bypass in one shot. It specifies supported walls (Cloudflare Turnstile, DataDome, etc.) and how bypass differs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'detect_anti_bot' (likely detection only) and 'verify_cf' (focused solely on Cloudflare).

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 explains when to use the tool (on a page with an anti-bot wall) and provides routing details for different wall types. It implicitly covers when not to use (no wall returns ok) but does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or when to prefer them over this one-shot approach.

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