select_option_by_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that an exception is raised if the element or option is not found within a 7-second default timeout. However, it does not mention side effects, whether existing selections are replaced, or what happens if multiple matches exist.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the timeout/exception behavior is added as a second useful sentence without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter select tool, the description covers purpose, failure behavior, and timeout. The main missing detail is selector format, but the tool is simple and the parameter name is reasonably self-explanatory. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. 'by its visible text' clarifies that the option parameter is the displayed text, but the description does not explain what format dropdown_selector should take (CSS selector, XPath, etc.). Some meaning is added, but not enough to fully compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('Select'), a resource ('a <select> dropdown option'), and a distinguishing criterion ('by its visible text'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools select_option_by_value and select_option_by_index.

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 phrase 'by its visible text' implies this tool is for selecting based on text rather than value or index, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over select_option_by_value or select_option_by_index. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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