browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether typing appends or replaces existing content, whether it dispatches keyboard events or sets the value directly, whether the field must be visible or focused, or what happens if the selector matches nothing. For a state-mutating browser interaction with zero annotation coverage, these are meaningful omissions.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though it is arguably too terse given the unannotated mutation behavior.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not incomplete for a simple input action. It omits return behavior (success/failure signal) and the semantics of selector matching, which an agent would benefit from knowing. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 both the selector and pressEnter parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (types text) and resource (input or textarea element), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_evaluate, though it never names those alternatives explicitly. An agent can identify the core function but must infer the boundary cases.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus browser_click, browser_evaluate, or other interaction tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., element must exist or be focused). The phrase 'active or specified tab' hints at the tabId option but provides no guidance on choosing between the two. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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