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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'select options' and does not mention that the action changes DOM state, fires events, waits via timeout, or how frameSelector affects behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a browser mutation 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and every word earns its place.

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 schema documents most parameters, including iframe handling and value/label semantics, making the tool callable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets little context about wait behavior or post-selection effects, so the description is only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'CSS selector or aria ref' but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents; timeout behavior and value/label handling are left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Select options from a <select> element.' It also names the two locator mechanisms, CSS selector or aria ref, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling click/fill/type tools.

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 phrase 'from a <select> element' gives clear context for when to use this tool and implicitly distinguishes it from alternative interaction tools like browser_click or browser_fill. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the target element is unambiguous.

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