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 behavior. It only says 'select an observed dropdown option' – it doesn't mention that this performs a UI mutation, whether it requires a preceding browser_observe call, or whether it triggers events or changes the page state. It also fails to disclose any constraints like the option needing to be visible or in the DOM.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure (e.g., prerequisites, examples, or parameter explanations) that would make it useful. Every word is needed but critical information is missing, so the brevity is a liability, not an asset.

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 is part of a complex browser automation suite with 14 siblings, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain how to obtain the 'ref', what happens after selection, or any error conditions. The agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the current definition.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain what 'ref' and 'option' mean. It only hints that 'option' can be a value or label, but gives no explanation of 'ref' – presumably a reference to the dropdown element obtained from observation, but this is never stated. This leaves the agent guessing about the required format and source of both parameters.

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 a resource ('observed dropdown option'), and specifies that it works by value or label. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click (which clicks any element) and browser_type (which types text). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with browser_act, which might be a generic action tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state that the dropdown must be observed first, nor does it explain when to prefer this over browser_click or browser_type. The need for prior observation is implied by 'observed' but never made explicit, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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