browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions simulating real keyboard input but does not disclose details like whether it clears existing text, supports special keys, or handles events. It does list errors and output, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 well-structured with English summary and Chinese details. It is concise but includes necessary usage guidance, error info, and example. The bilingual approach adds some redundancy but remains efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, errors, and output format. It is fairly complete for a two-parameter tool, though behavioral details could be richer.

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 coverage is 100%, yet the description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'CSS selector, supports Playwright syntax') and providing an example. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 'Type text into a DOM element matched by CSS selector in a real browser, simulating real keyboard input.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and nuance, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_click or browser_aria_type.

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 includes explicit 'when to use' scenarios in Chinese (e.g., filling login forms, search boxes, textarea, testing input limits), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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