browser_request_human_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool sends a desktop notification, returns a message to relay, and instructs the agent to stop and wait. It also warns against bypassing CAPTCHAs. This is transparent about the blocking nature and expected workflow, though it doesn't detail failure modes or user-inactivity handling.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then details the behavior, and ends with a critical safety directive. Every sentence adds value, and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what the tool does, what the agent should do afterward, and a prohibition on bypassing CAPTCHAs. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'reason' and 'message' with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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: to hand control to a human for actions automation cannot or should not perform, listing specific examples (CAPTCHAs, anti-bot walls, 2FA, judgment calls). It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools by focusing on human intervention rather than direct automation.

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 explicitly says when to use it (CAPTCHAs, anti-bot walls, 2FA, judgment calls) and includes a strong directive to not attempt bypassing CAPTCHAs, implying alternatives are not appropriate. It also tells the agent to STOP and wait, providing clear operational guidance.

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