humanizer_idle

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the synthetic nature ('simulate'), the exact behaviors (micro-jitter, occasional micro-scrolls), and the intended effect (avoiding idle detection). It could add caveats about visible cursor movement or detection limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and mechanism; the second gives the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple simulation tool, the description plus fully described schema is enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that with no output schema, it does not state whether the call blocks for duration_ms or returns immediately, but that is unlikely to block correct usage.

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 each parameter already has a useful description, including the intensity enum's exact jitter ranges. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the general behavior, so the baseline score applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: simulate idle behavior, with concrete mechanisms (mouse micro-jitter and occasional micro-scrolls). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like humanizer_move or humanizer_scroll by framing the actions as idle-simulation rather than deliberate interaction.

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 gives an explicit context for use: keep the page 'alive' to avoid idle detection by bot-detection scripts. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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