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 only states the operation and resource, but does not disclose whether the selection triggers change events, waits for interactions, requires element visibility, or what happens on failure. This lack of behavioral detail limits an agent's ability to predict side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is structurally efficient, though it omits necessary parameter context that would make it more valuable. For what it contains, it is appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse schema lacking parameter descriptions, the description needed to compensate by explaining ref/value semantics and behavior. It does neither, leaving the tool incomplete for a browser automation operation with two required parameters.

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?

The input schema defines two required strings (ref and value) with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. An agent cannot infer whether ref is a selector, index, or internal ID, nor whether value expects an option's value, text, or position. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 action (select) and the resource (<select> dropdown), which distinguishes it from generic tools like click or fill. It does not specify whether the option is matched by value, text, or index, but the core intent 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?

Usage is implicitly clear for native <select> elements, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like fill or click, nor any exclusions for custom dropdowns or non-visible elements. The context is understandable but relies on inference.

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