browser_is_checked

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean), whether it waits for the checkbox to exist, or any side effects. The phrase 'check state' is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 (two characters in Chinese), which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place by adding any useful information beyond the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description still fails to provide essential context such as return type or typical usage. It is incomplete even for a basic state-check tool.

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 schema has one parameter 'selector' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'selector' means or how it should be formatted. With 0% schema coverage and no compensatory explanation in the description, the parameter semantics are completely unexplained.

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 '检查复选框状态' (check checkbox state) directly restates the tool name 'browser_is_checked' without adding specificity about what 'state' means (e.g., checked/unchecked). It provides a verb and resource but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like browser_is_visible or browser_is_enabled.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how it relates to browser_check, browser_uncheck, or other state-query tools. The description implies a state check but provides no usage context.

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