browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the clear behavior (default true) and press_enter option, but does not mention error handling, waiting for element visibility, or how tab_id is used. This is a moderate disclosure level, leaving some behavioral traits undocumented.

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 well-structured with clear sections: intro, prerequisite, typical flow, and args. It is longer than ideal but each part serves a purpose, and the flow example is particularly useful. No wasted words.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides a solid overview, usage examples, and parameter details. It lacks explanation of tab_id and does not describe return values or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return information. Overall, quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description's Args section adds meaningful explanations for selector, text, clear, press_enter, and session_name, including examples and defaults. However, it omits tab_id, a parameter in the schema, leaving that parameter without semantic explanation. Since the schema itself has no descriptions (coverage 0%), the description covers most parameters well but not all.

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 states the tool's action ('Type text into an input field') and provides concrete examples (login forms, search boxes, payload injection). This distinguishes it from sibling browser tools like browser_click and browser_go.

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 includes a prerequisite (browser_open and browser_go must be called first), a typical login flow with numbered steps, and a use case for XSS testing. It also explains when to use press_enter for search forms. It lacks explicit exclusions relative to alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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