browser_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'upload file'. It does not mention that a selector must point to a file input, whether the filePath can be an array, or any side effects. The transparency is critically insufficient.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It consists of a single vague phrase that fails to earn its place by conveying necessary information.

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 minimal description, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool is severely underdocumented. The agent cannot infer return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or how the tool integrates with browser workflows.

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 provides no explanation of 'selector' or 'filePath'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to guess how these parameters interact.

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 '上传文件' (upload file) directly restates the tool name 'browser_upload_file' without adding specificity. It does not describe what kind of file, where it is uploaded, or how it relates to page elements, making it essentially a tautology.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_download_file or browser_fill. The description lacks any contextual or conditional advice.

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