browser_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'select an option in a dropdown,' which conveys the purpose but reveals nothing about side effects, return values, error handling, or whether the selection triggers events. There is zero additional behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, straightforward sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it is under-specified in content, which slightly detracts from its value, but from a pure conciseness standpoint, it earns a high score for avoiding fluff.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain how to identify which dropdown to use, how the 'values' array works, whether multi-select is supported, or what happens after selection. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, browser-side effects), the description is grossly inadequate for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

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 four parameters (element, ref, values, _agent_id) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the rubric, high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3. The description does not compensate or enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 '在下拉框中选择选项' clearly states the action (select) and the target resource (dropdown box). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose and distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on dropdown selection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention alternative approaches, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over other browser interaction tools. There is no explicit or implicit usage guidance beyond the bare action itself.

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