browser_select_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies how to target the element but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., firing change events), prerequisites (e.g., dropdown must be open or visible), or permission requirements. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap, potentially leading the agent to attempt selection without ensuring the dropdown is interactable.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the targeting method. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to functional clarity.

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 and the schema covers parameters well, but the description omits behavioral context like side effects, required interaction state, or error handling. With no output schema or annotations, an agent might not know if the selection triggers navigation or requires permission. While not catastrophic, it leaves gaps in scenarios where dropdown interaction has prerequisites.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's target info ('snapshot ref (eN) or selector') and adds 'one or more options' for values, but this adds marginal new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not introduce format details or examples, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('select') and resource ('options in a dropdown') and specifies the two identification methods (snapshot ref or selector). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click (clicking an element) and browser_fill_form (filling forms), making the 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 implies when to use it: when selecting options in a dropdown, including multi-select for multiple values. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling names are present, but no direct comparison is made. This is adequate but could be improved with a note on when browser_fill_form might be preferred.

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