select_option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior: it handles both a real <select> and a custom popup-based control. Yet it omits side effects, interaction details, and failure behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the compatibility nuance added immediately after. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 tool with four required undocumented parameters and no annotations, two sentences are insufficient. The dual-format handling is helpful, but the agent still lacks parameter semantics, usage boundaries, and behavioral details needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the description gives no explanation of the required parameters ref, value, role, or reason. With four required parameters and no schema-level documentation, the description must compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Choose an option in a dropdown.' The compatibility note about native and custom controls clarifies scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fill_field or click_target, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for dropdowns, including custom controls that open a popup, with examples like LinkedIn and Workday. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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