Select option

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds no additional behavioral context about side effects, event triggering, or return values. It merely restates the mutation ('Selects...') without acknowledging potential page changes or external impacts. This adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 that states the core action first, then explains addressing. There is no fluff or redundant detail. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description is minimal. It does not mention potential event triggers, error conditions, or what happens after selection. While the schema covers parameter details, the description could be more complete about the mutation's impact and any caveats. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 all parameters are documented. The description reinforces the addressing methods (ref, css, role+name) already present in the schema but adds no new semantics. The 'values' parameter meaning is also already covered, so the description provides no extra clarity beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Selects one or more options in a <select>.' This is specific and distinct from siblings like browser_click or browser_type, which are generic interactions. The addressing modes (ref, css, role+name) further clarify the intended use.

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 usage for select elements but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose. This is adequate but not explicit.

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