Browser Select Option

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It adds one meaningful behavioral fact: the submitted value is the visible option label, not the option's internal value attribute. It stops short of saying whether selection triggers side effects, clears prior selections, or errors on no matching option.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying distinct information and no filler. The core action is front-loaded, with the parameter caveat second. This 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?

For a simple UI mutation, the core usage is stated, and the output schema covers return expectations. However, the description omits usage boundaries and any behavioral caveats, and it relies on the agent already knowing how `session`/`tab` work. It is adequate for the happy path but not fully self-contained.

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 is bare (0% coverage), and the description partially compensates by explaining that `value` is the option label and that selection is by `ref`. `tab` and `session` receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to rely on defaults or conventions. For a low-coverage schema this is only partial compensation.

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?

Identifies a distinct operation: selecting an option in a dropdown/combobox using a ref. The parenthetical 'combobox' and the phrase 'Value = option label' clarify the resource and selection criterion. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough to separate it from click/fill tools.

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 implies the right scenario: when an agent needs to choose an item from a dropdown that was located by ref. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, so the agent must infer the boundary from the verb and resource. With many browser interaction siblings, this is a usable but implicit hint.

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