select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful semantics (value matches the option value or its visible label) and the custom-dropdown caveat, but omits failure behavior, whether change events fire, and what a successful call returns. Moderate coverage for a state-mutating tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the value-matching rule, then the exclusion. No wasted words.

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?

For a 7-param tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key value-matching behavior; the remaining params (find, expect, tabId, spaceId, snapshotId) are documented in the schema. A brief note on failure/return behavior would complete it.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that `value` matches either the option's value or its visible label and that `ref` is the primary locator. That is genuine added semantics over the bare string type.

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 states a specific verb (Choose) and resource (an option in a <select>) and scopes it 'by ref'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like click/fill/type by explaining that custom dropdowns are handled differently.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not rule (custom dropdowns such as react-select, MUI, Element UI are NOT <select>) and routes the agent to the alternative workflow: click to expand, read options from snapshot, click one. Nothing is left to inference.

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