browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: text is entered and the target is resolved via focus, a matched selector, or a ref. However, it omits details like whether typing is simulated keystrokes, whether the element is auto-waited or focused first, and what the submit and slowly flags change.

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 filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and the core behavior appears first.

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 five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse for an agent to call the tool reliably. It needs usage guidance, clearer parameter semantics, and some behavioral notes to be complete.

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 is the only documentation for all five parameters. It loosely explains ref ('ref-targeted') and selector ('matched') but is silent on slowly and submit, and it does not clarify how the targeting modes interact with one another or with the required text 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 states a concrete action (type text) and a resource (the focused, matched, or ref-targeted element), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast browser_type with the similarly text-oriented sibling browser_fill, so it stops short of differentiating the tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose browser_type over browser_fill, browser_press, or browser_click. The only hint is the word 'type' already present in the tool name, which provides no decision criteria.

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