jevbrow_select

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds value by disclosing a key behavioral constraint: it only accepts observed options and never model-generated inputs. This is critical context not captured in annotations, but it does not describe side effects or prerequisites beyond the implication of 'observed'.

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, tightly written sentence with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint appended. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description explains the action and a critical constraint, but it leaves a required parameter ('fingerprint') undefined and provides no guidance on how to obtain the action_id or fingerprint, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'action_id' identifies the observed dropdown option, but it completely neglects 'fingerprint', leaving its meaning and role unclear. An agent cannot correctly supply both parameters based on the description alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('one observed native dropdown option'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like click and type_text by focusing on native dropdown options and requiring prior observation, which makes its purpose 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: selecting an observed native dropdown option. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('never accepts model-generated selectors or values'), which helps the agent avoid misuse, though it does not mention alternative sibling tools by name.

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