browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions realistic keystroke timing, which is a positive behavioral trait, but does not disclose other important traits such as whether it waits for the element to be interactable, what happens if the selector is invalid, or potential side effects like triggering events. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a live page.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and a key behavioral detail. It earns a 4 for being concise and structured well, though it does not quite merit a 5 because it could also mention a usage clause without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (typing into a live browser page), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should explain more about behavior (e.g., focus handling, typing speed, error scenarios). It provides some context (realistic timing) but is insufficient for an agent to predict all outcomes. A tool with this interaction complexity needs more clarity.

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?

Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the exact behavior of clearFirst (e.g., whether clearing is immediate or simulated) or the selector syntax (e.g., supporting CSS selectors only). The description adds no value beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Type text into an input or textarea' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions 'realistic human keystroke timing delays' which is a useful specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_evaluate, so it loses a point for not explicitly distinguishing itself.

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 implies that it is for typing text into form fields, and the realistic timing suggests it is for user-like interaction, which is distinct from browser_evaluate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus browser_autofill_login or browser_click, nor does it state when not to use it.

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