browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — 'Text is sent byte for byte' (no key interpretation) and the secret-handling safety rule — but says nothing about focus behavior, error/failure results, whether existing field content is cleared, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the byte-for-byte behavior, then the safety exclusion. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Covers purpose, targeting modes, and a safety caveat adequately for a 4-param, no-output-schema tool. With zero annotations, though, the behavioral profile is thin: an agent cannot tell what happens on a bad selector, whether the element is focused first, or whether text is appended or replaced.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: selector and x/y are presented as alternative targeting modes, implying a mutual-exclusion relationship the flat schema never states. It stops short of explaining precedence if both are supplied.

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?

Names a specific verb (Type) and target ('CSS selector, or at an x/y point'), which is enough to distinguish it from browser_click and browser_press. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (browser_press for keys), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit negative case and a concrete alternative: 'Do not use this for a secret a human should enter — ask them to take over in the live view instead.' That is real when-not-to-use guidance with a fallback, though the positive when-to-use case versus browser_press is left implicit.

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