browser_select_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action implicit in the name, without mentioning side effects, preconditions (e.g., visibility, snapshot relevance), events triggered, or reversibility. For a mutation operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, and every word earns its place.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain how to specify values (critical for a select control), nor disclose behavioral outcomes. The schema helps with parameter syntax, but the overall tool behavior remains under-specified.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions for target, pageId, and sessionId. The description adds some meaning to the 'values' parameter by stating 'one or more values,' but it does not clarify whether these are value attributes, labels, or indices. With 75% schema coverage, the description contributes minimally beyond the structured fields.

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 'Select one or more values in a select control' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type. It immediately conveys the tool's exact function without ambiguity.

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 the tool is for select controls but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is clear from the description itself, but there is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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