browser_type

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

Discloses behavior for clear and submit flags, and mentions return of an AI snapshot. However, since no annotations are provided, the description must cover all behavioral traits. It does not mention failure modes or side effects (e.g., page navigation after submit), limiting 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 very concise with three short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters).

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 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the 'element' parameter is unexplained, 'session_id' usage is unclear, and there is no mention of error handling or page state after typing. A more complete description is needed for reliable tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains ref, clear, and submit, but omits the required 'element' parameter and optional 'session_id'. 'text' is implied but not explicitly described, leaving 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?

Description explicitly states 'Type text into the field identified by ref', specifying a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill_form by focusing on single-field text input.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_fill_form for multiple fields or browser_press_key for keystrokes. The description lacks context for selecting this tool.

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