browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It includes the core actions (open, input, return) and notes the returned page is updated. Missing details about failure handling, prerequisites, or side effects, but the description is not misleading and basic behavior is disclosed.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, mentioning the primary action first. It wastes no words but could benefit from slightly turning the purpose claim into a fuller explanation without bloat.

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 simplicity, the description is adequate: it conveys the purpose and primary behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return-format details, so the description reasonably omits those. However, it is thin on potential caveats (e.g., JavaScript dependency, selectors must be visible/animated) that would make it robust.

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 only lists 3 parameters with 0% coverage, forcing the description to clarify meaning. It interprets 'selector' as a CSS selector and 'text' as the input content, but does not describe URL format or specificity. This partial clarification improves on schema but leaves some ambiguity.

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 opens a URL, types text into a CSS-selector field, and returns the updated page. It specifies the use case (search forms) and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_navigate (navigation only) and browser_click (click only), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions it is for search forms, giving a clear context for use. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools like session_type. The instruction is functional but does not frame usage in relation to other available options.

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