wavexis_shadow_eval

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

The description states 'Side effects: Arbitrary; executes user-supplied JavaScript', which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true that suggests no side effects. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about safety and write potential.

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 four sentences, starting with the main purpose. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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?

The description explains the return format (JSON string with status and result) and mentions side effects. However, it could include more details on error handling, security implications, or limitations. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-heavy tool with 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?

The input schema already has descriptions for all four parameters (selectors, expression, session_id, await_promise), providing high coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 a shadow DOM tree, using a selector chain. It differentiates from sibling tools by recommending wavexis_shadow_click or wavexis_shadow_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?

The description provides a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to by advising to use specialized shadow interaction tools for standard actions instead of raw JS. However, it does not exhaustively list all alternative tools.

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