browser_interact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely lists interaction types without explaining how actions are executed (e.g., sequential order, waits for page load, element visibility requirements) or how errors are handled (despite the 'onError' parameter existing). The description adds no safety or side-effect context, making it insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's runtime 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and a concrete list of interactions. It has no fluff or redundancy. However, it is somewhat generic and could have been slightly more informative, but for a broad tool, this level of brevity is acceptable and efficient.

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 tool's complex schema (actions array with many possible types and nested properties) and the existence of many specialized sibling tools, the description is far too brief. It lacks guidance on constructing actions, specifying selectors or coordinates, handling the onError parameter, and understanding the relationship to single-purpose siblings. No output schema exists to clarify return values, so the description must carry more weight but fails to do so.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters, with the 'actions' array containing many nested fields. Schema description coverage is only ~50% (some properties like 'key', 'text', 'value', 'selector' have descriptions, but many do not). The tool description enumerates action types that mostly mirror the enum values in the schema, adding little new meaning. It does not explain how to structure an action object, use selectors, or handle the 'onError' option, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 tool's purpose: performing browser interactions like click, type, hover, scroll, and file upload. It uses a specific verb ('Perform') and identifies the resource ('interactions'), making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as click_by_overlay_id or scroll_page, though the broad list of capabilities implies a multi-action tool.

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 phrase 'one or more interactions' implicitly suggests the tool is for batching/sequencing multiple actions, which distinguishes it from the single-action sibling tools. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or specific conditions. The implied usage is present but not clearly articulated.

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