wavexis_eval

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses side effects: launches/acquires browser backend, navigates to URL, executes arbitrary JS (may trigger network requests or DOM mutations). This adds valuable context.

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?

Three concise paragraphs. First sentence gives clear purpose. Second covers usage and side effects. Third describes return format. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 output schema present, description covers return format. However, it lacks guidance on session management (session_id) and detailed parameter behavior. Still adequate for most use cases given good annotations.

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%, so description should compensate. Only mentions url briefly (navigates to if provided) and return format. Does not describe other parameters like expression, session_id, wait_timeout, etc. Inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters.

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' and the resource 'JavaScript expression in the browser context'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like wavexis_scrape and wavexis_act, which are for different use cases.

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?

Explicitly says when to use wavexis_scrape (same expression across many pages) and wavexis_act (natural language interaction) instead, providing clear alternatives.

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