Select option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating that the tool 'waits for the element to be actionable' and that matching is by the value attribute. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing options, whether change/input events fire, or what the tool returns, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what is selected, how matching works, waiting behavior, and target locator compatibility.

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 relatively simple browser action with a rich schema, the description covers the essential operational details: target element type, matching mechanism, waiting behavior, and locator options. It does not explain return values or error cases, but with no output schema and a straightforward action, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'value' is matched against the option's value attribute and that 'target' supports the same selector/getBy* locator forms as 'type'. This extra semantic guidance justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Selects an <option> inside a <select> element'. It also clarifies the matching mechanism ('matched by the option's value attribute'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like click, type, check, and uncheck.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an option inside a select element needs to be chosen. It also provides locator guidance ('same as type'), which helps the agent reuse known patterns, though it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like click.

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