browser_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key output traits—focusing on the dominant form, human labels, and heuristically detected submit buttons ('likely'). It also implies stability with 'use once.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail, or what happens when no form is present.

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 compact—two short sentences—with the output structure front-loaded and the usage instruction in the second sentence. It is slightly dense and grammatically a noun phrase, but it contains no fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential return content and the logical next step (browser_set by field number). It leaves minor edge cases unaddressed, such as handling multiple forms or a missing form, but it is largely sufficient for a zero-parameter inspection tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed; instead it clarifies the semantic content of the returned field metadata.

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 identifies the resource as the 'dominant form' and enumerates the returned data: per-field metadata (n, tag, type, label, required, options) plus likely submit buttons. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'extract' or 'inspect,' relying on a noun phrase, which slightly weakens action clarity.

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?

It provides concrete workflow guidance: 'Use once per application page, then browser_set fields by number.' This tells the agent when in the interaction sequence to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusion cases, but the usage rule is actionable.

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