Inspect verification challenge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'evidence plus the handling policy,' which hints at a diagnostic, non-mutating read, but neither term is defined and nothing is said about whether inspecting consumes or alters session state. Some added value over the annotations, but thin.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope and ends with what the caller gets back. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and 'evidence plus the handling policy' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell what evidence is provided or what it is supposed to do with the policy. The relationship to the five sibling captcha tools is also unstated, leaving the selection decision under-informed.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Configured browser session identifier'), so the schema fully documents session_id with its length bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (inspect), an explicit resource (a configured browser session), the search target (an active verification challenge), and the return payload (evidence plus handling policy). It reads as a read-only probe, which distinguishes it reasonably well from captcha_complete/handoff/resume, though the boundary with the similarly-named captcha_analyze is never addressed.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the first-look check to discover whether a challenge exists before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when NOT to call it, and no routing to captcha_analyze, captcha_wait, or the other siblings despite five overlapping alternatives.

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