browser_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the selection methods (value, label, index) but doesn't mention behavior when no match is found, multiple matches exist, or whether it requires the element to be visible. This is a significant gap for a browser automation tool.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and method. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information or repetition.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter interdependencies, error handling, or return behavior. The tool is more complex than what a one-liner can sufficiently describe, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema coverage is low (20%), and the description compensates somewhat by explaining that selection can be by value, label, or index. However, it doesn't clarify whether these are mutually exclusive, what 'index' means (0-based vs 1-based), or the relationship with the required selector parameter. Adding these details would be more helpful.

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 uses a specific verb 'select' and resource 'option', making the primary purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_fill, which perform different actions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'dropdown' or 'select element', so the scope could be slightly clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify that it's intended for dropdown/select elements or clarify interactions with other browser tools. The usage context is entirely implied, which is insufficient.

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