browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait ('sequential key events') which indicates how typing is simulated, useful for understanding side effects. However, it omits other potential behaviors like focusing the element or clearing existing text, leaving some ambiguity.

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 filler words. It conveys the essence efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 relatively simple tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key behavioral detail. It does not address edge cases or return behavior, but the essential context is provided. Given the moderate complexity, this is near-complete, though it could benefit from clarifying usage vs. fill_form.

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 60%, and the description adds minimal parameter insight—only mapping 'text' and 'element' to the obvious properties. It does not explain delay, pageId, or sessionId semantics beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are present for some. The description adds a bit of context about sequential key events that relates to delay, but not enough to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Type' with resource 'text into an element' and adds the mechanism 'using sequential key events', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key.

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 usage for typing text into an element, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like fill_form or press_key. The context is clear enough to infer, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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