browser_quick_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the iterative fix-and-verify process and return values. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., page state changes), failure handling, or whether operations are read-only/destructive.

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 and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value. Minor improvement: could be slightly more structured for readability.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many sibling browser tools), the description lacks comparison to similar tools (e.g., browser_verify_fix) and doesn't detail return structure. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand when to use this tool.

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% - all parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only high-level context about fix strategies, not specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: automatically attempt common fix strategies to resolve browser interaction problems. It specifies actions (wait, scroll, force visible, remove occlusion, inject JS) and return values (logs, status, next action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_find.

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 when encountering problems (supported by 'problem' parameter enum). It mentions batch support. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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