chrome_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention important behaviors such as clearing the field (clear parameter), submitting a form (submit parameter), waiting after typing (waitMs parameter), or handling tab selection (tabId parameter). The tool's interaction with other parameters like debugUrl is also omitted.

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 a single concise sentence but front-loads the action and target. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), it is too brief and lacks structure. A more detailed breakdown would improve usability.

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 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the basic function and ignores return values, side effects, dependencies (e.g., on tabs), and error cases. It is highly insufficient 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints at selector and label parameters by listing identification methods, but it does not explain other parameters like clear, submit, waitMs, tabId, debugUrl, urlContains, or titleContains. Many parameters remain opaque.

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) and target (input or textarea), along with various element identification methods. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like chrome_press or chrome_click, which could be used for similar interactions.

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 implies use for filling text fields but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chrome_select for dropdowns, chrome_press for keyboard shortcuts). No prerequisites or conditional usage are mentioned.

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