browser_get_by_label

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses only that the tool finds an element by label, omitting critical behaviors: whether it returns a single element or waits for multiple, how 'exact' affects matching, error handling when no element is found, or whether it performs an implicit wait. The description is behaviorally opaque.

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 short, which is superficially concise, but it is under-specified. It contains no front-loaded meaningful content beyond the name's translation. The lack of essential information makes it more an abridgement than a concise, well-structured description.

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 complex domain (browser automation with many locator strategies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to cover return types, selector semantics, parameter effects, or edge cases. It provides barely enough information to infer the tool's basic purpose, let alone use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'text' or 'exact' parameters or explain their roles. It adds no value beyond the schema's bare parameter names. The description should compensate for the missing parameter documentation, but it does not.

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 '通过标签查找元素' (find element by label) essentially restates the tool name 'browser_get_by_label'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'label' means, how it differs from sibling locator tools, or what 'get' implies (returning an element handle). This is a tautology rather than a clarifying statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like browser_get_by_text, browser_get_by_placeholder, or browser_get_by_title. There is no mention of label semantics, exact matching behavior, or fallback options. The agent receives no decision-support information.

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