browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful traits: 'Uses human-like timing and occasional typos' and 'no element targeting'. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., if no element is focused) or detailed side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not detailed here), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral trait. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if no element is focused.

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 must compensate for the single 'text' parameter. The description implies text is the string to type, but adds no format, length, or encoding constraints beyond the schema.

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 'Type text at the current cursor position (no element targeting)', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like browser_fill (which targets an element) and browser_press (key presses).

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this after clicking an input to type into it, or to send keyboard input to the focused element.' This gives appropriate usage guidance, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser_fill or browser_press, which would enhance differentiation.

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