browser_select_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that for custom dropdowns it clicks the trigger, waits for options, then clicks the matching option. It also mentions the default wait time. However, it does not discuss edge cases like missing options or scrolling behavior, which could be useful.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides behavioral details and a reference to an alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a dropdown selection tool. It covers behavior for both native and custom dropdowns and points to an alternative for autocomplete. Minor gaps exist, such as not describing return values or error handling, but these are not critical for typical 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?

Schema descriptions already cover parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: explaining how the wait parameter is used in custom dropdowns and that option supports partial match. This additional semantic value justifies a 4.

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 verb 'Select an option from a dropdown menu' and distinguishes from the sibling tool browser_set_combobox for autocomplete. It also mentions compatibility with both native and custom dropdowns, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use browser_set_combobox instead (for autocomplete). It also explains the internal behavior for custom dropdowns (click trigger, wait, click option). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list prerequisites, but the guidance is clear enough.

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