Select option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that selection is based on visible text, value or index, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the change triggers JavaScript events), error handling (e.g., what if option not found), or scope (e.g., operates within current page context).

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and identification methods. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No waste, though it could optionally add a brief usage hint without breaching conciseness.

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 the tool has 4 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks coverage of return behavior (e.g., what happens on success/failure), frame handling nuances, and edge cases. For a selection action in a browser automation context, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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 75%, meaning most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds that selection can be by 'visible text, value or index', which maps to the 'by' enum, and that the 'value' parameter can be text or zero-based index. This provides modest added meaning beyond the schema, but the 'frame' and 'selector' objects remain documented primarily in schema, not description.

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 verb 'choose' and resource 'HTML <select> element', specifying three identification methods (visible text, value, index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies when to use by saying 'choose an option of an HTML <select> element', which suggests this is for dropdown selections. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, mention prerequisites (e.g., element must exist), or compare with alternatives like click on an option directly.

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