browser_ask_user

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the visible side effect (overlay dialog), the ability to include input fields, and the return of user responses. However, it does not mention that the tool likely blocks or waits until the user responds or the timeout elapses, which is important behavioral context for an automation agent.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, useful examples follow, and the return behavior is stated briefly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the main interaction and return value. However, the return is only described as 'user responses' without clarifying the shape (e.g., object keyed by field names), and the waiting/timeout behavior is absent. For a blocking interactive tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning input fields and returning responses, but it does not provide extra semantic depth such as example values or the response shape, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action: showing an overlay dialog to request user action or information, with concrete examples (credentials, 2FA, CAPTCHA, OAuth consent). It is not a tautology and goes beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_handle_dialog or browser_solve_captcha.

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?

The description gives a clear sense of when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the user to perform an action or supply information. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives, which matters given overlapping siblings like browser_solve_captcha and browser_handle_dialog; the CAPTCHA example could confuse an agent into choosing this over an automated alternative.

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