browser_select_option

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—nothing about triggering events, changing form state, or multi-select side effects. With a destructive hint, the absence of any warning or side-effect disclosure is a notable gap.

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, waste-free sentence that states the core action immediately. It is concise and front-loaded, though it does not use the available space to add valuable context.

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 tool with a fully described schema and annotations covering the mutation/destructive profile, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks guidance on alternative-tool selection, side effects, and the exact meaning of 'values', which leaves an agent with unanswered questions for correct invocation.

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 in detail; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because schema carries the burden, but the description does not clarify whether 'values' are option labels, value attributes, or indexes.

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 an option in a dropdown' names a specific verb and resource and clearly identifies the tool's job among a long list of browser interaction tools. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from close siblings like browser_click or browser_type, which could also be used for dropdown interaction.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over browser_click, browser_type, or browser_fill_form, and states no prerequisites or conditions. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose, so an agent gets no decision support for selecting among alternatives.

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