browse_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: the human-like typing delay. However, it omits what happens if no element is focused, whether existing text is cleared, error conditions, and any rate/timing limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficiency is good, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps rather than compensating for them.

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-style interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much open: overlap with browse_fill, focus behavior, and the meaning of the optional selector are all unresolved.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. It never explains that 'selector' defaults to empty meaning the currently focused element, nor whether typing appends to or replaces existing content.

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 (type) and resource (text into an element) plus a notable trait: simulated human-like delay. It does not differentiate from the sibling browse_fill, which an agent would reasonably see as overlapping, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of browse_fill or browse_press, despite those being direct alternatives. The phrase 'focused/selected element' hints at context but never states when calling this is appropriate or when it is not.

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