browser_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting details like whether it waits for the element, scrolls into view, toggles vs ensures checked, or handles errors.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action and target. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separating parameter explanations) that would improve clarity without added length.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address return values, error messages, or behavior when no parameter is provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the five parameters. It barely lists them by name but provides no details on usage, defaults, or interactions (e.g., whether multiple can be used together). The enum for 'role' is in the schema but not mentioned.

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 (check) and the target resource (checkbox or radio), and lists multiple identification methods (ref, selector, role/name, text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_uncheck or browser_select_option.

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 usage for checking checkbox/radio elements, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_uncheck) or when not to use it.

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