browser_select_option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates the action and the two accepted match modes (value or label), but does not disclose details such as multi-select behavior, what happens on no match, or whether page events are triggered.

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, readable sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 simple two-parameter browser interaction tool, the combination of a clear description, complete schema coverage, and an available output schema provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor edge-case details, such as multi-select handling, are absent but not critical for basic 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (target and values) well. The description's mention of 'by value or label' adds slight context for the values parameter but does not go beyond the schema meaningfully.

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 ('Select') and resource ('an option in a dropdown (<select>)'), and clarifies that selection can happen by value or label. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type, which handle other interaction types.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description: use it when you need to choose an option in a dropdown. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, so the guidance relies on inference.

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