playwright__browser_select_option

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and destructive, so the mutation risk is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention that selecting an option can trigger change events, alter page state, or invalidate dependent elements. With destructiveHint=true, the description carries responsibility for disclosing side effects and fails to do so.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and the '[playwright]' prefix is minor clutter but not a structural deficiency.

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 simple selection tool, the description plus fully covered schema is minimally viable. Still, it lacks key context about how values are matched to options, whether multi-select applies broadly, and what side effects may occur. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description is not fully self-sufficient on its own.

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 schema already documents target, values, and element adequately. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, particularly leaving ambiguous whether 'values' refers to option value attributes, labels, or indexes. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource ('Select an option in a dropdown'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like click, type, or fill_form. It slightly oversimplifies by saying 'an option' when the schema supports multiple values, but the intent is 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 the tool—when the agent needs to pick an option from a dropdown—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when it is not appropriate. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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