browser_type

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses meaningful details: the locator priority order (pos → ref → selector → role+name), the automatic fallback to placeholder/label/common CSS, and the wait_stable=true behavior of waiting for DOM quiet. It does not cover failure behavior or default clearing, but adds substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the core action before diving into locator mechanics. The use of arrows and parenthetical fallback notes is information-dense but not bloated, making it reasonably easy to scan.

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?

This is an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only explains the main typing flow and one option (wait_stable). Missing are the effects of clear, press_enter, confirmed, task_id, return values, and failure scenarios, making the overall context incomplete for an agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for 11 parameters. It explains pos, ref, selector, role, and wait_stable, but leaves clear, confirmed, press_enter, and task_id unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with many optional parameters, especially since 'clear' has a non-obvious default of true.

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 opens with '在输入框中键入文本' (type text in the input box), clearly stating the tool's verb and resource. It further distinguishes browser_type from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_read by focusing exclusively on text entry and specifying the locator priority.

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 the tool is for typing text into inputs but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as browser_evaluate or browser_click. No exclusion or comparison with sibling tools is provided, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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