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 states the action but omits details about side effects (e.g., triggering change events), prerequisites (e.g., dropdown must be visible/enabled), or behavior when both label and value are provided. The ambiguity about whether both parameters can be supplied is not addressed, but the core functionality is accurately described.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple tool. It covers the action, target, and selection criteria. However, it could mention that the element must exist in the page snapshot (implied by `uid`), and that the tool waits for interactability (common for browser automation but not stated). Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that label and value are alternative selection methods. However, this is partially redundant with the schema descriptions ('visible text', 'option value'). The description does not provide additional detail such as validation rules or priority between the two.

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 'Select' and identifies the resource 'an option from a <select> dropdown'. It also specifies two methods ('by value or visible label'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'fill' that operate on different elements or perform different actions.

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?

While the description clearly implies usage for selecting dropdown options, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'click' might be used for interactive elements other than selects, or that 'type_text' is for text inputs. Nevertheless, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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