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. It discloses the matching mode behavior (default by value, by_text for visible text), which is useful. However, it omits what happens when the option is not found, whether it waits for the element, whether it dispatches change events, or what the result looks like.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence focuses on the one non-obvious parameter toggle. No wasted text.

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 simple DOM-interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior but leaves two of four parameters (selector, tab_id) and all failure/waiting semantics unaddressed, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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. It explains the interplay of value and by_text meaningfully, but leaves selector and especially tab_id (which tab context the selection applies to) completely undocumented.

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+resource: 'Choose an <option> in a <select>'. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like browser_fill, browser_type, or browser_click, which an agent could otherwise confuse with option selection.

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 clarifies parameter behavior (value vs text matching) but offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as browser_fill or browser_submit_form for related form interactions.

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