chrome_type

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'clear_first: Clear existing value before typing,' which is a useful trait. However, it does not describe side effects such as error handling (e.g., if element not found), timing (e.g., waits for element), or whether it simulates keypresses versus setting value. The return is vaguely 'Success or error message.'

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, purpose-defining sentence followed by a clear, bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence is informative, no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter explanations, and return value. It lacks details on prerequisites (must have active session) and error scenarios, but overall is adequate for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: session_id (returned by chrome_open_session), selector (CSS selector), text (text to type), clear_first (clear existing value). This adds meaning beyond the property names, though further specificity (e.g., 'valid CSS selector') would improve it.

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 into an input element in an active Chrome CDP session,' specifying a verb ('type'), resource ('input element'), and context ('active Chrome CDP session'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_click (click) and chrome_extract (extract).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be open), exclusions, or conditions under which other tools might be preferred. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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