Browser Act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: type supports clear and submit, scroll is in pixels with negative meaning up, and targeting can use ref or CSS selector. It does not cover failure behavior or navigation side effects, but the core behavioral surface is disclosed.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The action list is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information such as negative-scroll direction, targeting options, and ref provenance.

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 description provides a compact action mini-language plus targeting guidance, which is enough for an agent to invoke most actions correctly with the schema defaults. It omits session/device semantics and action-specific parameter requirements, but the output schema covers return-value expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It successfully embeds most parameters in action syntax: type(text, clear, submit), press(key), select(value), scroll(amount px), and ref/selector. However, session and device are never explained, leaving the parameter model incomplete for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 concrete action catalog on the page resource: click, type, press, focus, hover, select, check/uncheck, scroll, and scroll_into_view. It also specifies how to target elements via ref from browser_find/browser_read or CSS selector, which clearly separates it from the read-only browser siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: perform actions on the current browser page, and obtain refs from browser_find/browser_read. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it contrast it with mobile interaction siblings like tap, type_text, or press, leaving the domain boundary to inference.

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