browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that typing is key-by-key and intentionally fires JS handlers, and that submit=true presses Enter and yields a fresh snapshot. This is meaningful context about side effects and behavior beyond the bare schema.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and the most important behavioral points front-loaded. Every clause adds useful 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, the target, the optional behavior, and the key side effects. It does not discuss edge cases, when typing might fail, or what happens when submit is false, but the core usage is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies n as the target element ('#n') and explains the submit parameter's behavior ('submit=true presses Enter'), but it leaves the text parameter entirely implicit, relying on the tool name and schema title. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 states a specific action ('Type into #n key-by-key') and resource, making it clear this is a text-entry tool. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_press or browser_set by emphasizing key-by-key input that fires JS handlers, and by naming target use cases (search boxes, chat fields).

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 explicitly says to use the tool for search boxes and chat fields, which gives clear context for when it applies. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended usage is not left to inference.

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