chrome_eval

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, permission requirements, or execution context (e.g., page scope), which is critical for a JavaScript evaluation tool.

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, efficient sentence that prioritizes action and context. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could add more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain return values and parameters. It lacks essential information about what the tool returns (JavaScript result) and how to configure the 6 parameters, making it incomplete for complex use.

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 to any of the 6 parameters. It does not explain tabId, waitMs, debugUrl, urlContains, or titleContains, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 the verb 'Evaluate JavaScript' and the resource 'in the selected tab', distinguishing it from siblings like navigation or clicking tools. It also specifies the tool's scope (small, explicit inspection or panel automation snippets).

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 gives implicit usage guidance ('small, explicit inspection or panel automation snippets'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, relying on sibling tool names for context.

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