runtime_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state if the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects it has (e.g., modifying runtime state), or security considerations. It is minimally descriptive.

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, which is concise but too short to provide adequate guidance. It lacks any structure that helps an agent quickly grasp key information; it merely restates the tool's name and schema reference.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., must be connected to a page). The agent would lack essential context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters. For instance, 'context_id', 'timeout_ms', 'await_promise', and 'return_by_value' are not described beyond their names and types in the schema.

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 that it evaluates JavaScript in the mini program runtime via CDP Runtime.evaluate, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'evaluate_on_callframe', which likely evaluates in a different context (call frame vs. global runtime).

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 other evaluation tools like 'evaluate_on_callframe' or 'cdp_call'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection state, context existence) or typical use cases.

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