browser_file_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral facts not in annotations: the tool requires an active file chooser dialog, and paths are constrained by --upload-allow-dir. However, it says nothing about failure modes, whether prior selections are replaced, or how errors surface.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint as a follow-up. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential precondition and the path constraint. It is nearly complete, with only error/replacement behavior left unspecified.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'paths' fully. The description's path-constraint sentence duplicates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (files) with a clear target (the active file chooser), which distinguishes it from siblings like browser_drag and browser_drop. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does and where it acts.

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 phrase 'active file chooser' implies the precondition that a file chooser dialog must already be open, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., browser_drop for drag-drop scenarios). Usage is only implied.

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