browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool types text, clears by default, and returns updated page context. This is adequate but does not cover potential error conditions, waiting behavior, or what happens if the element is not found. More detail would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary information. It is well-structured with the primary action stated first.

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 moderate complexity (four parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, default clearing, and return type. It could mention prerequisites like page load or element existence, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that the clear parameter defaults to true. It does not elaborate on the 'text', 'selector', or 'visual' parameters, so it provides only marginal added value.

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 function: typing text into an input field on the current page. The specific verb 'Type' and resource 'input field' make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_read, which have different actions.

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 a key default behavior (clearing the field first), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context implied by sibling names offers some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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