scout_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Select an option in a <select> by ref' and does not disclose whether the action triggers change events, waits for navigation, requires visibility, or what happens when the value/label is not found. These are meaningful gaps for an interaction 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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the brevity edges into under-specification, particularly around the meaning of 'ref'.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimally described ref parameter, the description is not complete enough. An agent would still need to infer where ref comes from, what 'value' matching entails, and what side effects or errors to expect.

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 67%, with value and session already documented. The description adds some interpretive value by indicating that ref is a reference to the select element, but it does not explain how ref is obtained or formatted, leaving the most opaque parameter only partially clarified.

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 states a specific action ('Select') and a specific resource ('an option in a <select>'), refined by 'by ref'. This makes the tool's core purpose clear and distinguishable from names like scout_click, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool: whenever an option needs to be selected in a <select> element. However, it gives no exclusions, no guidance on how it compares to sibling tools like scout_click, and no mention of when the session parameter should be used, which lives only in the schema.

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