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 discloses the core action and selection mechanism ('by value'), but does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering change events), error behavior if the option is not found, or whether it waits for the element. This is a basic, but not fully transparent, description.

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, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word contributes meaning: 'Select', 'option', '<select> element', 'by value'. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the essential action and target, but lacks details about return values, waiting behavior, or error handling. An agent might need to assume default behaviors, which could lead to incorrect invocation in edge cases.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('selector' and 'value'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it restates the selection method ('by value') which aligns with the value parameter. The schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 the tool's function: 'Select an option in a <select> element by value.' It uses a specific verb ('select'), a specific resource ('option in a <select> element'), and the method ('by value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, type, or fill.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when interacting with a <select> element. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous given the tool name and description. It lacks a comparison to fill or click, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select the right tool.

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