select_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the option is chosen by value, text, or index, what happens if the option isn't found, whether it triggers change events, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a UI interaction tool.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, but it's under-specified. Conciseness is fine, but the brevity comes at the cost of necessary details, so it doesn't fully earn its place as adequate documentation.

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?

Given no annotations knead no output schema provided (though indicated as present, it's empty in the prompt), the description is incomplete: it doesn't cover failure modes, waiting behavior, or whether the element must be a native <select>. The tool is simple, but more context is expected for a UI interaction tool.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It only explains 'option_text' as being visible text, and says nothing about 'selector' (CSS selector? XPath? ID?). Thus, half the parameters are left ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb (Select) and resource (dropdown (<select>) option) and clarifies the selection is by visible text, which distinguishes it from generic 'click' or 'type'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., type_text or execute_script), so it loses one point.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's preferred over click for dropdowns, or if it requires the element to be already visible or if it handles native vs custom selects. The context of use is not explained.

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