Fill many fields at once {ref: value}; optional submit_ref to click after. For login/forms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | {'@eN ref': 'value', ...} | |
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open | |
| submit_ref | No | optional @eN ref to click after filling |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral detail. It does not explain whether filling waits for page updates, handles errors on invalid refs, or impacts page state beyond filling. The optional submit_ref is mentioned but not elaborated.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first front-loads the primary action and parameter format, the second adds context. No wasted words, easy to scan.
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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools like browse_type and browse_click, the description covers the core functionality and use case. However, it lacks details on the ref format (e.g., '@eN' pattern), constraints, or behavior when fields are missing. More completeness would improve, but it is adequate.
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%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the pattern for the 'fields' parameter as '{ref: value}' and explicitly linking 'submit_ref' to clicking after filling. This extra context enhances understanding 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?
Description clearly states the tool fills many fields at once and optionally clicks a submit button, explicitly mentioning use case for login/forms. It distinguishes from siblings like browse_type by emphasizing bulk filling and optional post-fill click.
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 provides context by stating 'For login/forms', which implies typical usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like browse_type for single-field input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.