browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the two behavioral modes—instant fill with selector vs key-by-key typing into the focused element—which is valuable. But it leaves important behavior unclear, such as whether typing replaces existing text, appends, or fires events, so it only partially covers the expected transparency burden.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by precise mode details. There is no redundant language or filler; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 three-parameter typing tool, the description covers both invocation modes and benefits from an existing output schema. However, it omits common behavioral clarifications like text replacement vs appending and support for special keys, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call it 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 value by explaining the behavioral consequence of the selector parameter ('filled instantly' vs 'typed key by key') and clarifying that omitting the selector targets the focused element, which is not explicitly in the schema property description. This supplements the structured parameter docs.

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 opens with 'Type text', a specific verb and object, and clarifies two modes: with a selector the value is filled instantly, without it text is typed key by key into the focused element. This gives clear functional meaning beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser_press_key.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to type text, with an optional selector or into the focused element. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as browser_press_key or browser_click, and no exclusions or fallback conditions are stated.

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