browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait—typing character by character to trigger key events—which is valuable for agent decision-making. It does not mention potential side effects like clearing existing text or requiring focus, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Type text character by character') and appends the key use-case rationale, making it both concise and information-dense.

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 simple tool with three parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and distinctive behavior. It lacks explicit details on prerequisites or error behavior, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of typing, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds a small semantic nuance to the 'text' parameter by implying sequential character input, but it does not significantly go beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states the tool types text character by character, a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_fill (likely bulk input) and browser_press (key presses) by emphasizing the character-by-character behavior and key event triggering.

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 parenthetical 'useful for triggering key events' provides clear context for when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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