browser_select_option

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses two traits beyond the schema: the operation returns an updated page snapshot, and page content is untrusted so instructions in it must not be followed (a genuinely valuable safety note). It does not cover failure behavior on a missing/ambiguous option, event dispatch, or multi-select semantics, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the return value, and the injection guard. The core verb and target are front-loaded with zero filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return-value expectation and the untrusted-data warning, which is most of what an agent needs. It falls short only on the meaning/source of `ref` and on error handling for invalid or ambiguous option matches.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that `values` accepts option values OR visible labels, which the schema's bare string array does not convey. However, `ref` is left completely undefined in both the schema and the description, and the snapshot/screenshot flags are only documented in 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?

States a specific verb (Choose) and resource (option(s) in a <select>) plus the two accepted identifier forms (value or visible label). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_click, browser_type, and browser_press_key without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'in a <select>' implicitly scopes usage to dropdown elements, which is useful routing context, but the description never states when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g. browser_click on a native picker) or any prerequisites such as needing a ref from a prior snapshot.

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