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 for behavior disclosure. It states the basic action but omits key behaviors such as whether text is appended or replaces existing content, what happens if no element is focused, or if special keys are supported. This is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral details and usage context that would be valuable given the sibling tools (e.g., difference from browser_fill). The description hits the minimum viable level but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Type text' directly clarifies that the 'text' parameter is the content to be typed, matching the schema's sole property. For a single simple parameter, this is adequate, though no additional constraints are mentioned.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('currently focused element'), clearly stating the action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like browser_fill, but the 'focused element' phrasing provides some differentiation.

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 implies usage when keyboard input into a focused element is needed, but it gives no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving context to be inferred.

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