browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Type text into input' and does not explain whether it clears existing content, appends, triggers events, requires focus, or handles special characters. This is a significant gap for a typing tool with potentially nuanced 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?

The description is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It consists of a single clause that essentially restates the tool name. There is no front-loading of critical information, and no sentence earns its place beyond stating the obvious action.

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 existence of many sibling browser tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it describe any behavioral edge cases (e.g., handling of non-input elements, validation, or return values). An agent using this description alone would lack essential context for correct 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 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the basic action without explaining how parameters interact (e.g., what 'text' does in relation to the selector, or when 'session' is needed). It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Type text into input.' It is unambiguous about the action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_fill or browser_press. It lacks specificity about the target (e.g., 'the element matching selector') and does not mention any distinguishing behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as browser_fill, browser_press, or browser_set. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The description is a bare statement of action, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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