wavexis_iframe_eval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a JSON string with a result, but does not elaborate on error handling, security restrictions, or side effects.

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 extremely concise with three lines: purpose, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is adequate but lacks details on error behavior, iframe prerequisites, and output structure beyond 'result'. It meets minimum viable but has gaps.

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 description only lists parameter names (iframe_selector, expression) without explaining their meaning or format. The schema covers two parameters with descriptions, but session_id and await_promise are undocumented. With 0% schema coverage reported, the description does not compensate.

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 evaluates a JavaScript expression inside an iframe, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wavexis_eval for the main page. It uses specific verb+resource and is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for iframe evaluation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wavexis_eval or wavexis_shadow_eval. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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