browser_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action but omits critical details: does it wait for the selector to appear? What happens if the option is not found? Is state mutated? No error behavior, timing, or side effects are mentioned, making the tool opaque for safe invocation.

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, short sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, it may be too terse for a tool with nested parameters and no annotations, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 has no output schema, three parameters (including two complex nested objects), and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or the lifecycle of the selector (e.g., does it close after selection?). The agent lacks critical context to use the tool reliably.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that locator and option_locator accept only semantic accessibility-tree locators and reject CSS/scripts, which is not apparent from the property names alone. However, collaboration_id lacks description and the added semantic constraint is minimal. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens a semantic selector and chooses a semantic option. It uses specific verbs ('open' and 'choose') and identifies the resource (semantic selector/option). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click, which could also interact with selectors, leaving some 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_hover. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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