browser_select_option

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation data, such as whether selection triggers change events, how multi-select behaves, or what happens when values do not match options.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 has four parameters, full schema descriptions, and annotations covering safety and openness. The description is minimally adequate but omits useful context about permission requirements for the 'element' parameter and the practical distinction from other form-interaction tools.

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 documented directly in the schema. The description mentions 'dropdown' and 'option' but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('an option in a dropdown'), so the basic action is clear. It does not distinguish this from siblings like browser_fill_form, browser_type, or browser_click, which also interact with form elements.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_fill_form, browser_type, or browser_click. The agent must infer that this is for select/dropdown elements from the word 'dropdown' alone.

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