browse_select_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether this dispatches change/input events, what happens if no matching option exists, whether it waits for the element, or whether multi-select is supported — all critical for a mutation on page state.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a narrow tool, though the single-clause form leaves no room for the disambiguation the call actually needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter detail — and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot tell from this how `selector` is interpreted or what side effects or failure modes to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'by value' usefully clarifies the `value` parameter means the option's value attribute rather than its visible label, but `selector` (the other required parameter) receives no explanation of format or scope.

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 ('Choose') and resource ('an option in a <select>') and clarifies the matching mode ('by value'). That differentiates it from browse_click and browse_fill, which operate on arbitrary elements, though it never names those siblings.

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 mention of '<select>' implies this is for dropdown elements rather than clicking or typing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over browse_click or browse_fill, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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