browser_select

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 mentions that multiple options can be selected ('one or more') but does not disclose whether selection replaces existing values, how multi-select is handled when the dropdown does not support it, or any side effects like triggering change events. This is minimal transparency for a mutating action.

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, well-structured sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple browser interaction.

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's simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: it explains what the tool does and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail (e.g., multi-select handling), which prevents it from being fully contextual even for a simple action.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including clear definitions for 'values' (single string or array) and 'selector' (selector or ref). The description itself adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema shoulders the burden.

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 tool's function: 'Select one or more options from a dropdown.' It uses a specific verb (select) and resource (dropdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill. Even without mentioning <select>, the term 'dropdown' conveys the target element 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?

The description implies usage for interacting with dropdown elements, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., browser_click, browser_type). No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the term 'dropdown.'

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