browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden but only states the basic action. It omits behavioral details such as whether the element must be visible, whether existing text is cleared, whether keystrokes are fired individually, or what happens on failure, so the agent cannot anticipate 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it maximally concise and easy to parse. It earns its place by stating the core action efficiently.

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 low parameter complexity and full schema coverage, the basic action is understandable, but the description lacks the usage and behavioral context needed to disambiguate from browser_fill. With no output schema and many sibling typing-related tools, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100%: both 'selector' and 'text' include descriptive text. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so it earns the baseline score for schema-covered params.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Type text into an element') and matches the browser_type name. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_fill or browser_press_key, both of which could plausibly type text.

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?

No usage guidance is provided; the description never states when to prefer this over browser_fill or browser_press_key. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, so the agent receives no decision support.

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