browser_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only offers vague hints about committing or submitting focused forms. Key traits like whether the key chord is sent synchronously, what happens if the tab is not shared, or whether this is destructive to any state are missing. The phrase 'governed mutation boundary' is jargon without explanation, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or limitations.

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 two sentences long, which is concise, but the second sentence is dense and uses jargon ('governed mutation boundary') without payoff. The first sentence clearly states the core action. It is not bloated, but the structure does not front-load critical usage information for quick scanning.

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 two parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a moderately complex action (key chord dispatch with boundary crossing), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention return values (e.g., success indicator), error conditions (e.g., invalid key, unshared tab), or behavior with modifier keys. The agent has to guess whether this tool supports backspace, arrow keys, or control sequences beyond Enter/Tab.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no detail about each parameter. The keys parameter is not explained (e.g., accepted key names, chord formatting), and collaboration_id's meaning is left undefined. With two required parameters and zero schema documentation, the description adds no semantic value beyond 'keys exist'.

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 states the tool dispatches a bounded key chord to an explicitly shared tab. It uses specific verbs and resources (dispatch key chord, shared tab) and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other actions like clicking, typing, or navigation. However, the phrase 'Modifier and Enter/Tab chords can commit or submit a focused form' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer about the primary action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_type or browser_click. The description mentions crossing a 'governed mutation boundary' but does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., tab must be explicitly shared via browser_open?) or exclusions. The context around form submission is hinted but not actionable for an AI agent deciding between sibling tools.

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