chrome_select_option

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., visible element), native event dispatch, or return behavior. The description is too bare to be transparent about what happens during selection.

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 sentence, fully front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain how to choose between label vs. value, any side effects on the page, or error scenarios. The minimal one-liner leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral details.

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%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Select an option from a <select> dropdown'. It uses a specific verb (select) and resource (option in a <select> dropdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_click or chrome_type. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for selecting options in native <select> dropdowns. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., chrome_click) or warn against use with custom dropdowns. It implies the scenario but lacks explicit exclusions.

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