detect_human_intervention

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states detection of intervention types but does not explain the detection mechanism (e.g., use of selectors), potential fallibility, or side effects. This leaves uncertainty about how the tool operates and what it guarantees.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 15 words, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it omits important behavioral details, slightly reducing its effectiveness. Still, it earns a 4 for conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., boolean, object) and edge cases. It does not, leaving the agent without critical information to interpret results. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how parameters like 'readySelector' or 'blockedSelectors' are used in detection. The value is sufficient but not enhanced.

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 detects whether a page requires login, CAPTCHA, consent, or manual verification, using a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('current page'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wait_for_user' and 'chrome_status' by focusing on page intervention detection.

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 the tool is for checking page intervention status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'wait_for_user' or 'chrome_status'. It lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information, making it average.

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