browser_select

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

The description adds that the tool 'fire[s] input/change events', which goes beyond the annotations. However, annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description does not detail other behaviors like waiting for events or preconditions.

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 redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a usage alternative. Every word adds value.

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's simplicity, the description is complete. It covers the action, how to use it (selector and value), and distinguishes from a sibling. No output schema exists, so no need to explain return values.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema; the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and resource '<select> (or input)', clearly stating the action and target. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from 'browser_type' by noting 'For typing free text use browser_type.'

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 provides a clear alternative ('browser_type') for free text input, guiding the agent on when to use this tool. It implies this tool is for selecting options from dropdowns or setting values on inputs, but does not mention other potential alternatives like 'browser_click' for non-select interactions.

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