browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the submit flag but does not disclose the clear default behavior (true per schema) or whether it replaces or appends text. It also omits error handling or field visibility requirements, making it minimally transparent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and the submit option. No wasted words, and it reads clearly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the default clear behavior, doesn't explain what happens if the field isn't found, and doesn't mention any return value. The agent lacks critical context for safe 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 50% (clear and submit have descriptions, ref and text do not). The tool description explains that ref identifies the field and text is what to type, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't define the format or scope of ref or text, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: focus a text field by ref and type text into it. The verb 'type' distinguishes it from clicking, pasting, or filling forms, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_fill_form or browser_paste, so it's clear but without sibling comparison.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_fill_form or browser_paste. The description only explains the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the action itself.

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