browser_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing whether it scrolls into view, toggles state, throws on invalid selectors, or affects page state. This is a significant gap for an automation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return values, success/failure behavior, or side effects. For a simple tool this is minimal, but the lack of behavioral context and outcome details leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (selector and sessionId), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'Check a checkbox or radio button' uses a specific verb+resource pattern, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_uncheck (opposite action) and browser_click (generic click), making the purpose 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?

The description implies the use case—checking checkboxes or radio buttons—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over browser_click or browser_uncheck, nor any prerequisites like element visibility. The context is implied rather than stated.

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