browser_select_option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: a two-round matching algorithm that tries the value first and then the visible label. However, it omits what happens when no match is found, how timeoutMs failure surfaces, and whether matching is exact or substring-based.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action first, then the matching behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the space could have been used for the missing parameter and failure-mode guidance.

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 four-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: it doesn't explain ref vs selector selection, timeout semantics, or error behavior on unmatched values. A caller can form the basic call but not reason about edge cases.

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 only 25% (only `values` is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it clarifies that each entry may be a value or a visible label and that two-pass matching applies. The `ref`, `selector`, and `timeoutMs` parameters receive no explanation of meaning, mutual exclusivity, or defaults in either location.

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 and resource: select an option within a dropdown (select) element. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as browser_click or browser_type at the level of intent, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over browser_click combined with browser_evaluate, or on whether it only handles native <select> elements versus custom dropdown widgets. Prerequisites for choosing `ref` versus `selector` are also left entirely implicit.

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