select_option

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses failure behavior (lists options for debugging) but does not mention other traits like whether the dropdown opens automatically, side effects, or return values. Additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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?

Description is two sentences long, each earning its place: first states purpose, second adds a key behavioral guarantee. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

No output schema, and description does not specify return values (e.g., success indicator, selected option). It also omits prerequisites like page load or visibility of the dropdown. For a simple UI tool, it is adequate but missing some context.

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% with parameter descriptions already provided. The description rephrases the parameters ('by the dropdown's label and the option text') and adds a note about failure behavior, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the specific verb 'select' and resource 'dropdown option', and distinguishes from sibling tools like click_element by specifying the interaction method. The failure behavior listing available options adds clarity.

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?

Description implies when to use (selecting a dropdown option by label and option text) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like fill_by_label or click_element. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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