Select Option

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

It discloses a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: on a failed match, the error lists existing options so the next call can succeed. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotence, and destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and matching semantics, the second adds actionable failure behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a simple select tool with no output schema, the description covers the element type, matching behavior, and failure feedback. It does not describe a successful return value, but the failure behavior is the most decision-relevant outcome for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the matching mode and adds the failure-list behavior, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation for option, selector, or tab_id.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Choose an option in a select element'. It further specifies matching by exact option value or visible label, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like click, fill, or press_key.

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 gives clear context by restricting use to select elements, which implies when this tool applies rather than generic click/fill. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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