browser_file_upload

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

No annotations are present, and the description offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the upload is synchronous, whether it waits for completion, supports multiple files (though the schema implies an array), or any side effects on the browser state.

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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It fails to convey anything beyond the tool's name, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a quality.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or the role of the '_agent_id' isolation key, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably.

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%, with both 'paths' and '_agent_id' having descriptive text. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '上传文件' translates to 'upload file', which is a direct restatement of the tool name 'browser_file_upload'. It provides no differentiation from other browser actions like browser_drop or browser_navigate, and lacks any detail about the browser context.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_drop. There is no mention of prerequisites like an active file input, page state, or how it fits into a browser automation flow.

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