Solve CAPTCHA

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that success is not guaranteed, that page state and cookies may change, that the tool no-ops when no CAPTCHA is detected, and that the return value only confirms the attempt was initiated rather than succeeding. This complements the annotations instead of merely repeating them.

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 longer than typical definitions, but every section earns its place: the supported widget list, workflow steps, risk disclosure, tool-selection guidance, and return-value clarification are each directly useful to an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before details.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: the preconditions, the exact supported CAPTCHA types, the post-call verification path, the side-effect behavior, and the meaning of the return value. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already provides 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no params, the baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing arguments that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it attempts a SeleniumBase CDP interaction to solve detectable CAPTCHAs on the current page. It lists supported widget types and explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish solve_captcha from click_element and hover_action without ambiguity.

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 workflow is explicit: inspect the page with get_content, call solve_captcha only when a CAPTCHA is present, and verify success through get_page_info, get_content, or manage_cookies. It also states when not to use it, directing the agent to click_element for standard visible elements and hover_action for hover-and-click reveals, making the routing decision explicit.

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