browser_type

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

The description discloses that the tool can optionally clear content and submit (pressing Enter), and that it returns the new visual state. However, it does not mention the wait_ms behavior, failure modes (e.g., non-editable element), or side effects beyond the optional submit. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the write nature, but the description adds only modest behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and key options without unnecessary detail. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it highly 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?

The description provides the essential action and return state, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool: it omits wait_ms, does not explain how to obtain the element reference, and lacks clarity on the 'current' aspect. This leaves room for agent confusion in real usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by implicitly covering most parameters: text (text to type), clear (optionally replacing contents), submit (pressing Enter), and element_id (current editable element reference). The wait_ms parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap for timing behavior.

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 action ('Type text'), the target resource ('current editable element reference'), and optional behaviors ('replacing its contents and pressing Enter'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_press (key presses) and browser_select (selection) by focusing on text input.

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 on editable elements ('current editable element reference') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It also lacks guidance on prerequisites, such as how the element reference is obtained.

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