browser_is_enabled

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 does not explain what happens if the element does not exist, whether it returns a boolean, or any potential side effects. For a state-check tool, such details are important and are omitted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately communicates the core action. However, it is somewhat under-specified, though this is more relevant to other dimensions than to conciseness.

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's simple nature, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not mention the return value (likely boolean), error handling for missing elements, or any interaction with the page state. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the need for a richer description, which is not provided.

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 input schema has one parameter 'selector' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate for this, as it merely refers to 'element' without explaining how to identify it or what selector format is expected (e.g., CSS selector, XPath). The parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool checks if an element is enabled, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_is_visible and browser_is_checked by focusing on the enabled state. However, it does not explicitly mention the return type or any scope limitations, keeping it slightly below a perfect score.

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 over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the element needing to exist, or when it is appropriate to check enabled state versus visibility or checked state. The description gives no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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