browser_select_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and tab targeting; it does not mention whether change events are fired, whether the element must be visible or enabled, what happens if the option value is invalid, or whether navigation/state changes may occur.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the tab-targeting capability is stated as a secondary but relevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, some behavioral context — such as return behavior or event side effects — is missing, leaving the completeness only at a minimum viable level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description only reiterates that tabId can target a specific tab, adding no semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action: selecting an option in a <select> element, which distinguishes it from generic interaction tools like browser_click or browser_type. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and verb are specific enough.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Select an option in a <select> element' — an agent can infer this tool is for dropdown option selection. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to browser_click, browser_type, or browser_fill_form.

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