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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, support for multi-select, event triggering, error conditions, or response format. This adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, tight sentence with zero redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, and every word adds value by specifying 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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits important contextual details such as whether selecting an option triggers change events, whether it works with custom dropdowns, and what the return value is. Without an output schema, more explanation is needed for reliable real-world usage.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about value formats, selector context, or how multiple selections are handled, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 target ('option(s) in a dropdown'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill, but the specificity of dropdown selection makes the purpose sufficiently clear.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where it should be avoided, or alternative tools for similar interactions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.

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