browser_request_human

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism (banner shown, waits for 'Listo'/'Cancelar') and an important privacy trait (the agent does not see what the human types). However it omits what happens on timeout or Cancel and what the call returns (confirmation/success flag), which matters for a blocking human-in-the-loop tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its triggers, followed by mechanism and the key privacy caveat. Every sentence adds value; nothing is padded.

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 blocking, human-interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the outcome of Ready vs Cancel and timeout handling. It covers the mechanism and privacy but leaves the return/result semantics unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (reason, timeout in ms) are already documented. The description adds contextual hints about what to put in reason (login, 2FA, CAPTCHA) but nothing about timeout behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: asks the human watching the browser for help, with concrete triggers (login, 2FA, CAPTCHA, a decision). This clearly distinguishes it from the automation siblings like browser_click, browser_type, browser_eval, which all act without human involvement.

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?

Names concrete situations when to use it (login, 2FA, CAPTCHA, a decision). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the triggers are specific enough that an agent can decide when to escalate to the human versus acting autonomously.

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