browse_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about where the key event is dispatched (focused element vs page), whether navigation/waiting is needed first, or whether modifiers block other actions. Only the syntactic shape of the argument is disclosed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by concrete examples. No waste, though the brevity is partly under-specification.

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 browser action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and example formats but omits focus/precondition context and return behavior, which an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 0% with a bare string 'key', so the description's format examples (``Enter``, ``Control+A``) genuinely add meaning beyond the schema — but it does not define accepted key names, case sensitivity, or separator rules, leaving real ambiguity.

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 (press) plus resource (a key or key combination), which clearly separates it from siblings like browse_type (text entry) and browse_click. No explicit sibling naming, but the action is unambiguous.

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 is only implied — the examples suggest keyboard shortcuts, but nothing says when to prefer this over browse_type/browse_fill or what precondition (focus, loaded page) is required.

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