browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait (select-all before replacing) but does not elaborate on other aspects like focusing the element, error handling, or interaction with hidden elements. The provided tip adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a useful tip. There is no wasted word, and the structure is clear and effective.

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 is simple and all parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not restate them. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., need for snapshot) and behavior (e.g., element visibility). It is adequate but lean.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add new meaning beyond the schema; the Control+a tip relates to usage rather than any specific parameter.

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 action ('Type text into an element') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_click, browser_press_key, and browser_hover. The use case of inputting text is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (typing into an element) and includes a practical guideline for replacing text via Control+a. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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