browser_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It doesn't mention return values, page context access, side effects, or whether the script is executed in the main world, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, using only five characters to convey the core purpose. It wastes no words, though its brevity leaves out valuable details; this is concise but arguably under-specified.

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 low complexity, minimal description might suffice, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context about return values, execution environment, and relationship to siblings. The current text is too thin for reliable agent selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the 'script' and 'arg' parameters. The agent receives no explanation of what 'arg' is used for or how the script should be formatted, completely failing to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'Execute JavaScript code' clearly states the verb and resource, establishing what the tool does. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related tools like browser_wait_for_function or browser_add_script_tag.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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