browser_select_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a real interaction (as opposed to synthetic DOM changes) and explains why that matters. It does not detail error conditions or return values, but the output schema covers returns, and the behavioral distinction is clearly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and parameters, the second justifies the preferred approach. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the value parameter semantics, and the behavioral rationale. It does not mention edge cases like missing options or non-visible selects, but these are unlikely to block correct invocation given the clear guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that 'value' can be either the visible label or the underlying value, which is critical for correct usage. The 'selector' parameter is left implicit, but standard CSS selector semantics are widely understood and not a significant gap.

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 (choose an option in a dropdown), identifies the target element type (`<select>`), and clarifies the two selection modes (visible label or value). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_evaluate, making its purpose 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?

Explicitly contrasts this tool with two alternatives: clicking + arrow keys (which cannot confirm the selected row) and browser_evaluate (which bypasses real interaction). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no ambiguity for an agent deciding among sibling tools.

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