browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only hints at behavior via the slowly and submit parameters, but does not explain if the field is cleared before typing, how special characters are handled, or what 'editable element' includes (e.g., contenteditable).

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, using a docstring format with clear parameter explanations. It is well-structured but could be slightly more efficient by removing redundancy (e.g., repeating the function name in the docstring).

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 the absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Success message'), the description covers basic usage but lacks details on behavior like clearing input, support for contenteditable, or handling of special characters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: element as a human-readable description, ref as an exact reference, text as the text to type, slowly for character-by-character typing, and submit for pressing Enter. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Type text into an editable element', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click and browser_press_key by focusing on text input into editable fields.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_press_key or browser_fill_form. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are given.

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