browser_file_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what the tool does, but omits critical details such as file size limits, permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), or return behavior. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise at one sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could include more information without losing conciseness, such as parameter roles.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter interactions, required fields (none are required but that is only in schema), or any constraints. The agent lacks enough context to use this tool reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ref or selector' but does not explain the 'path' and 'paths' parameters, nor does it clarify how these parameters relate to each other (e.g., mutual exclusivity, required combinations). The agent cannot infer proper usage beyond the names.

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 ('Upload files') and the target ('a file input'), and mentions two methods ('by ref or selector'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_fill_form and browser_paste, which handle different operations. However, it lacks specificity on what 'ref' and 'selector' mean exactly.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. Sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_check could be confused for similar actions, but no differentiation is given.

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