input

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 only lists actions but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or whether actions are synchronous. Important context like the required 'connectionReason' parameter is not elaborated.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the list of actions is crammed into one line; a structured list would improve readability.

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 the tool has 21 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain required parameters like connectionReason, optional parameters like steps or delay, or how actions interact with the browser state.

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 only 43% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. However, it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it lists actions but does not clarify the context of many parameters like x, y, from, to, or handleModals. The description does not help the agent understand parameter semantics.

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 browser input actions and lists all supported actions. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling tools seem to overlap directly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or examples of appropriate use cases.

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