inspect_visual_challenge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool requires consent, only operates on the active page, and never clicks. It details return structure, error shapes, and scope (v0.7.0 reCAPTCHA v2 only). This is thorough and transparent.

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 moderately long but well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides details on consent, return, errors, and scope. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure and error shapes. It covers consent, scope, and pairing. Minor omission: not fully describing challenge_text or fingerprint format, but sufficient for the tool's task.

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% and parameters are well-documented. The description adds context: page_id is ignored in current version, and selector has default auto-detection logic. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 a reCAPTCHA v2 image-grid challenge, screenshots it, and returns tile metadata. It distinguishes itself from the sibling solve_visual_challenge by noting that this tool never clicks anything, providing a clear purpose.

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 (detecting challenges), mentions the need for consent, and pairs it with solve_visual_challenge. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if no challenge present), though error shapes hint at that. It lacks explicit alternatives but context is clear.

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