browser_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mechanism (CDP Input.insertText), the reliability for CJK, and that it returns a JSON response, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., element must be focused), side effects (e.g., whether existing text is replaced), or error conditions. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured, with a one-line summary, a note on the mechanism, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the return type adequately. It could add more context about preconditions (e.g., focus requirement) or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: serialno is from list_devices, and text is the text to insert. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 inserts text into the focused page element, using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by noting the use of CDP Input.insertText, which is reliable for CJK, contrasting with synthesized key events. This gives a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (for inserting text, especially for CJK) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like browser_fill or computer_type_text. The contrast with synthesized key events hints at a trade-off but does not provide explicit routing guidance.

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