select_option_by_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavior: it raises an exception if the element or option is not found, and it specifies the default timeout of 7 seconds. This goes beyond the bare operation and gives an agent a clear failure model, though it does not cover event side effects or visibility requirements.

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 sentences with no filler: the main action is stated first, and the failure/timeout behavior is appended. Every sentence contributes essential 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 two-parameter interaction tool, the description covers the core action and failure mode, but it leaves the dropdown_selector parameter underspecified and does not mention how to distinguish this tool from select_option_by_text/index. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but slightly more context would make it complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of the option parameter ('value attribute') but leaves dropdown_selector's expected format unspecified (CSS selector, XPath, label, etc.). This is only partial compensation for two undocumented required parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Select a <select> dropdown option by its value attribute.' It clearly identifies the resource and the selection mechanism, and the phrase 'value attribute' distinguishes this from sibling tools select_option_by_text and select_option_by_index without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to select an option by its value attribute. It does not explicitly name select_option_by_text or select_option_by_index as alternatives, but the value-attribute qualifier provides enough direction for an agent to choose among the sibling select_option tools.

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