browser_is_enabled

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the basic action and does not mention return format, error handling, side effects, or whether it waits for the element. This lacks transparency for a tool that has no other metadata.

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 is immediately understandable and contains no extraneous information. It is optimally sized for a simple check tool.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a simple boolean check, and the phrase 'Check if' implies a boolean result. However, without an output schema, it would be helpful to explicitly state the return value and behavior when the element is not found. The lack of such details leaves some gaps, so a 3 is warranted.

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?

Both parameters (selector and sessionId) have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Check if an element is enabled' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_is_visible and browser_is_checked by focusing on the 'enabled' state, which is a distinct property.

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 explicit usage guidance or alternative comparison is provided, but the purpose is clear enough that the intended use is implied: when you need to verify whether an element is enabled. This falls under 'implied usage' rather than explicit instructions.

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