browser_select_option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It successfully discloses that the tool '[Disabled]' (critical status), and adds crucial context that it 'Dispatches a change event after selection'—informing the agent that JavaScript handlers will fire. Missing only error handling or return value details for a perfect score.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: status flag front-loaded, core action defined, behavioral side effect noted, and parameter constraint specified. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant or obvious information.

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 4-parameter browser automation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical bases: disabled status, element targeting method, event dispatch behavior, and parameter interaction. Minor gap in not describing return values or error conditions (e.g., what happens if selector not found).

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?

While schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds essential semantic constraint information not present in the schema: the precedence rule that 'value takes precedence if both provided.' This clarifies the relationship between optional parameters value and label.

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 specific action (Select) and target resource (<select> dropdown element). The '[Disabled]' prefix immediately signals availability status, and the specificity of 'by option value or visible label text' distinguishes this from sibling click or type tools.

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 provides clear parameter usage guidance ('Specify either value or label — value takes precedence'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_click_element for dropdown interaction. The '[Disabled]' status implies non-use, but functional alternatives aren't named.

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