browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Type text into editable element' without mentioning whether text is appended or replaced, whether key events are triggered, if focus is required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It lacks any structural guidance or additional context beyond the basic action. It may be front-loaded, but it is not appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and no annotations.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-contextualized. The description does not explain what happens after typing, how the element is selected, or how it relates to sibling actions. The rich schema information is not leveraged in the description, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 100%, meaning all six parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter selection or relationships. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not exceed that.

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 uses a clear verb 'type' and a specific resource 'editable element', making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, which could also involve typing text. The lack of differentiation prevents a higher score.

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 such as browser_fill_form or browser_press_key. It gives no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., element focus), or exclusions. This leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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