browser_run_code_unsafe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool is RCE-equivalent and executes in the Playwright server process, not the browser page. This helps an agent understand the security implications and that it can access server resources. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise with only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second sentence immediately adds critical safety context. There is no fluff or wasted words.

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 has no output schema and 2 parameters both well-described in the schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, its safety implications, and how the code is executed. A user might still wonder about return values, but the schema provides the code parameter description that shows the function returns a value, so it's adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional param-specific context beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run a Playwright code snippet', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'browser_evaluate' by emphasizing that this tool executes arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process (RCE-equivalent), whereas evaluate typically runs code in the browser page context.

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 explicitly warns about the unsafe nature ('Unsafe: executes arbitrary JavaScript...RCE-equivalent'), which implies it should only be used when full server-side code execution is needed. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (like browser_evaluate for page-scoped code) or when not to use it, though the warning strongly implies caution.

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