boj_browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention important behavioral traits: whether this requires the element to be visible/interactable, if it simulates keystrokes or sets value directly, potential side effects (like triggering events), error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after typing (success indicators, return values, or error behavior), nor does it provide context about browser state requirements or interaction constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool reliably in complex scenarios.

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 parameters (selector and text) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('type text') and target ('into an element on the page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling browser tools like boj_browser_click or boj_browser_read_page, which would require mentioning this is specifically for input elements rather than general interaction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a page to be loaded), when not to use it (e.g., for non-input elements), or direct alternatives among the sibling browser tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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