debugger_evaluate_at_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a prerequisite (a paused call frame) but never states it explicitly, and it does not disclose that evaluating arbitrary JavaScript can have side effects, may throw, or may require an active debugger connection. This is a significant gap for an execution 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core function and scope; the second adds a practical purpose that helps an agent decide to use it.

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?

Purpose, scope, and parameters are well covered, and the schema fully documents the arguments. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral prerequisites, side-effect potential, and error behavior—information an agent needs to invoke this safely and correctly in a debugging workflow.

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 input schema already documents expression, depth, and frame_index meaningfully. The main description adds context about frame scope but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('scope of a paused call frame'), and explains why local variables and closures are accessible. This distinguishes it from generic evaluate tools like console_evaluate and runtime_evaluate_many, and the 'confirm a hypothesis' phrase clarifies the intended use.

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?

Clearly implies when to use: when a call frame is paused and the agent wants to verify a hypothesis with a real value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the paused-frame context is a strong and clear signal that alternatives like console_evaluate do not fit this scenario.

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