browser_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: mode=dom dispatches input/change events, there is no automatic retry, and handlers may submit the form — a meaningful side-effect warning. It still omits what happens on failure or when the label matches zero/multiple options, which is the outstanding gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by caveats; nothing is padding. The phrasing is telegraphic ('Explicit mode=dom selects one unique enabled option'), which costs a little readability but not structure.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects and verification but leaves ref semantics, failure behavior, and ambiguity handling undocumented. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently in edge cases.

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 explains 'label' (visible label) and 'mode' (dom mode behavior) but says nothing about 'ref', a required parameter whose meaning an agent must guess from sibling tools.

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 target constraint: 'Select by visible label', which is more precise than a bare 'select'. It doesn't name a sibling (e.g. browser_click for non-select elements) or state that the target must be a <select>/option, so an agent must infer the resource type.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for the mode parameter ('Explicit mode=dom ... for legacy IE option-click failures') and a post-use step ('Read a fresh snapshot to verify'), but never says when to prefer browser_click/browser_fill instead, nor what preconditions (snapshot freshness, ref validity) must hold.

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