browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of character-by-character typing, but lacks any context about whether existing text is replaced, how the delay parameter works, or whether the element is focused first. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 short phrase, which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool. It is not a sentence and lacks structured content. This is under-specification rather than effective 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected behavior, return values, error conditions, or any usage context. This is inadequate for an agent to use 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%, so the description must compensate. The description '逐字符输入' provides no meaning for the parameters 'selector', 'text', or 'delay'. The schema itself has bare types with no docstrings, leaving parameters 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 '逐字符输入' translates to 'type character by character', which clearly indicates a typing operation. However, it does not explicitly state the target resource (e.g., an element identified by selector), and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like browser_fill or browser_press. The purpose is somewhat clear but under-specified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios (e.g., when you need to simulate typing with delays) or exclusions. Sibling tools like browser_fill and browser_press exist, but no comparison or recommendation is given.

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