detect_anti_bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool analyzes the current page and headers, which suggests a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, state changes, or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with an emoji and clear action. It uses a bullet-like list for detected systems, and every sentence adds value without 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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return value (system + recommended bypass strategy) adequately. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). According to guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the description does not add any, which 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 tool's purpose: analyze current page and HTTP headers to identify anti-bot systems. It lists specific systems (Cloudflare, DataDome, etc.) and mentions returning the identified system plus a recommended bypass strategy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_and_bypass, which likely also executes bypass.

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 needing to identify which anti-bot system is present on a page, and mentions a recommended bypass strategy. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, the context of sibling tools (e.g., detect_and_bypass) makes the use case clear.

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