computer.browser

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

The description discloses the use of an independent profile and the CDP/DOM Accessibility backend, and clarifies that the user's browser profile is not reused. However, with no annotations, this is insufficient for a multi-action tool that can click and set values; it doesn't mention side effects, requirements, or error behavior.

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?

Single sentence, highly concise, no filler. All content is relevant to the tool's core behavior.

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, an action enum, and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description leaves substantial gaps about how to use each action, expected inputs, and result formats.

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 only 20%, and the description only indirectly adds context for profileDir and port. It does not explain the required `action` parameter or other fields like `keys`, `query`, `value`, `window`, or `readyTimeoutMs`.

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 function: operating on Chromium pages via an independent profile and CDP/DOM Accessibility backend. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'browser' and 'Chromium', though it does not enumerate specific actions.

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 implies usage for browser automation with an isolated profile, and explicitly notes that it does not reuse the user's browser profile. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or conditions under which other tools should be preferred.

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