ghost_tab_select_option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait — that input/change events fire exactly as with a real choice. However, it is silent on failure modes (invalid/missing option value, disabled or hidden select), prerequisites, and whether the operation mutates page state irreversibly.

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?

A single 16-word sentence that front-loads the core action ('Choose an option in a <select>') and appends the essential behavioral caveat about event firing. There is no filler; every clause 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?

Given zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the definition is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and three required ones. An agent cannot recover what value refers to structurally (option value attribute vs. label), what selector format is expected, or how failures surface — none of that is available in any other field.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly tells an agent that selector targets a <select> element and value is the option to choose, but tab and browser receive no semantic explanation at all. With a 4-parameter tool, this partial compensation leaves real gaps.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Choose an option in a <select>' — and adds the decisive detail that it 'fir[es] the input/change events a real choice fires.' This makes the operation concrete and implicitly separates it from generic interaction siblings like ghost_tab_click or ghost_act, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: reach for this tool when you need to simulate a real user choice on a <select>, including its event side effects, rather than a bare click or key press. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is called out among the many interaction tools available.

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