browser_select_option

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only and operates in an open-world context. The description adds only the selection target and label/value mechanism, without explaining side effects, whether change events fire, multi-select behavior, or what happens on failure.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes directly to identifying the action and target.

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 full schema coverage and basic annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. It nevertheless omits practical context such as using ref from browser_snapshot versus text or selector, and does not clarify select-specific edge cases like custom dropdowns.

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 already documents ref, text, values, selector, and snapshot clearly. The description restates the label/value selection concept found in the values parameter but adds no further meaning about locating the element or returning a snapshot.

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 gives a specific verb (Choose) and resource (option(s) of a <select>) plus selection criteria (by label or value). It clearly identifies the operation as selecting options in a native select element, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill to differentiate.

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 'of a <select>' implies the tool should be used for native select elements, providing contextual usage. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like clicking or typing.

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