browser_run_code_unsafe

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds crucial context: it executes arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process and is RCE-equivalent. This warns about the actual risk and execution environment, which is valuable transparency. 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 two sentences with zero waste. It leads with the core purpose, then immediately gives the critical safety warning. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

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?

With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, the description adequately rounds out the tool by explaining the execution context and RCE risk. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required, but the lack of mention of return behavior is a minor gap.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (code and filename), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Run a Playwright code snippet.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it does not explicitly contrast with browser_evaluate or other siblings to highlight its uniqueness beyond the 'unsafe' warning.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Unsafe' label implies caution but does not mention any exclusions or better-matched sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without concrete direction.

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