browser_type

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: focus, clear (by default), insertText, optional submit that presses Enter, and caching of selectors via intent. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it omits details like waiting behavior or error handling.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence—yet conveys the core action and optional features. It front-loads the main operations (Focus, clear, insertText) and adds extras succinctly. 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of what `ref` refers to (e.g., CSS selector), what happens if `clear` is false, whether the element needs to be interactable, and any error conditions. The agent would need additional context for reliable 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 description coverage is low (17%), so the description must compensate. It explains the intent parameter's caching purpose and clarifies that `submit` is optional and presses Enter. However, it does not explain the `ref` (selector), `text`, or `tabId` parameters, leaving gaps.

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 performs focus, clear, and insertText actions, which together mean typing text into an element. It uses specific verbs and resource (typing into a field) and distinguishes from other browser tools like click or navigate. However, it could be more explicit about 'type text into a form field'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as browser_click or browser_press_key. It lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on the action alone.

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