wavexis_iframe_eval

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

The description states 'Side effects: Arbitrary; executes user-supplied JavaScript within the iframe context,' which implies potential mutations. However, annotations set readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, directly contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 concise with three sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, provides usage guidance, and lists side effects and return format efficiently.

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?

Despite clear purpose and guidelines, the tool is complex (executes arbitrary JS) and has several parameters. The annotation contradiction leaves ambiguity about safety and idempotency. The description fails to resolve this, reducing completeness.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Evaluate a JavaScript expression inside an iframe,' specifying the verb (evaluate), resource (JavaScript expression), and context (inside an iframe). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending wavexis_iframe_click or wavexis_iframe_fill for standard interactions.

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 advises when not to use this tool: 'Use wavexis_iframe_click or wavexis_iframe_fill for standard interactions instead of raw JS.' This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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