browser_select_option

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It merely restates the action without detailing side effects, multi-select behavior, or any required conditions. This is no more informative than the tool name itself.

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 with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It earns a high score for brevity, though it sacrifices substance for compactness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides almost no context about expected return values or side effects. The tool has four parameters and operates in a browser context, yet the description fails to explain any behavioral nuances or prerequisites, leaving it incomplete for an autonomous agent.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema fields already define, meeting the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 'Select an option in a dropdown' clearly identifies the verb (select) and resource (option in a dropdown), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_type, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., page snapshot required), or exclusions. This leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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