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 only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., does it clear previous selections? Does it trigger events? What happens if a value is invalid?). The parameter descriptions in the schema ('Element reference from snapshot', 'Values to select') add some context but do not disclose behavioral traits beyond parameter meaning.

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 extremely concise (5 words, one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Still, it earns its place by stating the purpose, so not a 5.

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's role in browser automation (with siblings like browser_snapshot, browser_click), the description lacks crucial context: how to obtain the 'ref' (from a snapshot), that the dropdown must be visible, or what the return value is. The schema covers parameter descriptions but not workflow context. The description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, with both 'ref' and 'values' clearly described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not need to repeat schema details, but it also does not add value beyond the schema.

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 'Select option(s) in a dropdown' clearly states the verb ('Select') and the resource ('option(s) in a dropdown'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like browser_click and browser_type, which are for general clicking or typing, and browser_fill, which is for text inputs. A specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., clicking an option with browser_click, or typing a value). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a snapshot first) or exclusions (e.g., only works with native <select> elements). The agent must infer usage from context.

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