browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the core action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether typing simulates human-like keystrokes or instant insertion, whether it waits for the element to be interactable, what happens if the element isn't an input, error conditions, or performance implications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., interaction timing, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, or return values. Given the complexity of browser automation and rich sibling set, more guidance is needed for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (ref, selector, text, clear). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'text' is typed into an 'input element', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Type text') and target ('into an input element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser_press_key (which might simulate keyboard input) or browser_select (which might handle dropdowns), leaving some ambiguity about when this specific text-typing tool is preferred.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple browser interaction siblings (e.g., browser_press_key for keyboard events, browser_click for clicking, browser_select for dropdowns), there's no indication of when text typing is appropriate versus other input methods or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a focused input element).

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