browser_file_upload

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, file path expectations, or what 'approved' means. No mention of potential navigation, form submission, or security restrictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is underspecified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness, but structurally it is efficient.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a fairly complex operation (file upload in browser). The description provides minimal context, leaving critical details like accepted file formats, path requirements, and behavioral outcomes unexplained.

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 75%, leaving the 'files' parameter without a schema description. The description adds slight clarity (local files) but does not explain the format of array entries or how 'approved' relates to parameters. The schema does the heavy lifting for the other params.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and identifies the resource ('approved local files') and the mechanism ('through a file input target'). It clearly differentiates from browser_drop by specifying the target is a file input, though the phrase 'approved' is vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_drop or browser_type. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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