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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., a visible dropdown, a prior snapshot), side effects (e.g., triggering change events), or behavior with multi-select. For a simple interaction, this minimal info leaves gaps about runtime behavior.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could include a brief usage tip without becoming verbose. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.

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 the tool's simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools, and it does not mention multi-select behavior or prerequisites such as a snapshot. These are clear gaps, but not severe given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (ref, values, element). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify how 'values' interacts with multi-select or how ref is obtained.

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 'Select an option in a dropdown' uses a specific verb ('select') + resource ('option in a dropdown'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_type, and browser_press_key. There is no ambiguity about what operation it performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used specifically for dropdown elements, nor does it exclude scenarios where browser_click might be more appropriate. There is no explicit comparison or context.

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