browser_ask_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool shows an overlay and returns user responses, but it does not mention that the tool likely blocks execution until the user responds or times out, nor what happens if the user dismisses the dialog. This is useful but incomplete behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured. Three sentences cover the core purpose, typical use cases, input-field capability, and return behavior without redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward interactive tool, but it lacks explicit detail about blocking behavior, timeout semantics, and the exact structure of returned responses. Since there is no output schema, a bit more clarity about the response shape and cancellation behavior would make the tool fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds general context about input fields and responses but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as showing an overlay dialog to request user action or information, with a specific list of use cases like credentials and 2FA. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools such as browser_handle_dialog, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like browser_solve_captcha.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the browser automation needs input from the human user. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better alternatives, such as using browser_solve_captcha for automated CAPTCHA handling instead of asking the user.

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