browser_select

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 fails to explain side effects (e.g., triggers change events), whether multiple selection is supported (despite value accepting an array), or any prerequisites like the element being a native <select>. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that interacts with page elements.

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 extremely short (three words in Chinese), but brevity is not conciseness when it omits essential information. It offers no structure or detail, making it closer to under-specification than efficient communication.

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 and its many sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or typical usage flow. Without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves the agent to guess how the tool behaves in practice.

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 lists only 'selector' and 'value' with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no additional meaning. The description does not explain that 'value' can be a string or array, nor does it clarify the expected format of 'selector' (CSS selector vs. XPath). With 0% schema description coverage, the lack of parameter explanation is a clear gap.

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 '选择下拉框' ('select dropdown') is a near-restatement of the tool name and gives only a vague sense of operating on a dropdown. It does not specify that it selects an option within a dropdown element, nor does it distinguish this from browser_click or browser_fill. A more specific phrase like 'select an option in a <select> element' would clarify the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click, browser_fill, or browser_check. The description does not mention the typical use case for a dropdown selection or exclude cases where other actions are more appropriate.

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